Out of Africa Busted

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:00 pm

I have never been anything but a multiregionalist, Richard. And I'm feeling pretty good about it right now.

I'm not familiar with Stringer or AHOB. You would have to enlighten me.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:05 pm

Ditto for Digit!

Manystones · Post by **Manystones** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:09 pm

Guys,

check out the link and cast your mind back to the 18 page article you just read

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:21 pm

I don't remember Stringer being involved in any wrongdoing. As for his Club affiliation, that will be with us always.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:56 pm

The evidence for the long-range model consists of a panoply of material finds which the short-range protagonists seem unfamiliar with. When confronted by individual finds challenging their model they try to explain them away; or regard them as a ‘running ahead of time’ (Vishnyatsky 1994); or pronounce them untypical; or challenge their dating
or the scholarly competence of their presenters.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:41 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/ ... ciencenews

It appeared to be one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.

This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten - a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist - told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull.

However, the professor's 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other "stone age" relics.

Yesterday his university in Frankfurt announced the professor had been forced to retire because of numerous "falsehoods and manipulations". According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten.

"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

Pleistocene archaeology has, once again, been Piltdowned.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:34 am

I've enjoyed Bednarik's paper very much, and a lot of his views make absolute sense to me:

But I would take issue on this:

All recent discoveries of the last twenty-six years have squarely confirmed my phosphene hypothesis, and no competing theory has stood the test of time (especially the shamanic hypothesis of art origins, which is so inexpedient I will not bother to discuss it here).

I question that.

The reason for the relevance of the phosphene hypothesis is it reinforces the notion that the earliest engravings we have reflect the operation of the visual system (Eichmeier and Höfer 1974). Phosphenes are most easily described as a kind of test pattern of the visual system. They are an autogeneous and involuntary phenomenon of the mammalian visual system whose form constants cannot be influenced by cultural conditioning and which seem to be ontogenically stable. This phenomenon can be produced by many factors, such as electrical stimulation (frequency dependent), pressure on the eyeball, blows to the head (“seeing stars”), certain hallucinogens and many others. Phosphene forms are the fifteen known standard form constants of phosphenes, and most of these are found in the earliest engravings and petroglyphs.

It is beyond doubt that phosphenes are intrinsic phenomena of the visual system, or entoptic phenomena, and that they reflect inherent structures of the visual system rather than any external factor or information. Since the earliest graphic production of the modern infant and the earliest production of hominins both consist entirely of compositions resembling phosphene forms, I consider it likely that these art forms are in some way related to specific basic neural processes of the visual system. Therefore the idea that these earliest engravings “resonate” with the neuron structures of the brain seems to be confirmed by the phosphene theory, according to which the entoptic stimulation recorded by the visual centre resembles inherent structures, such as perhaps that of the striate cortex …

I find it odd that Bednarik should say that the shamanic hypothesis of art origins are “inexpedient”. Apart from the strange choice of word, it also doesn’t make sense given that the earliest artefacts, otherwise, of Upper Palaeolithic man are all cult related - megaliths, other cult structures and skulls decorated with shells before burial. So why would we assume that the inspiration for their cave art is any different? Are we not imposing our own value judgements on a civilisation whose lives, we know, were centred around the mystical experience and was at one with it in a way we can hardly imagine in our society.

Coincidentally, I’ve been reading a very good book for the past couple of weeks: Inside the Neolithic Mind by David Lewis-Williams and David Pearce (which is a follow up to their The Mind in the Cave). In this, the authors show the kind of phosphene art that Bednarik refers to, and then compare it to what shamans say that they see when in trance. For instance, Bednarik says:

The first structured engravings are followed by increasingly complex geometric arrangements, such as multiple arcs, zigzags, circles and radiate patterns.

Lewis Williams and Pearce make the very good point that these are common visual patterns of phosphene activity experienced by the shaman at the beginning of the shamanic journey.

The shamanic trance can be caused by any of the following:

Rhythmic beat of between 4-7 per second
Intense, rhythmic dancing
Hand clapping
Voice ululation
Psychotropics
Prolonged darkness

All of the above we know would not have been outside the experience of upper Palaeo man and his ancestors, especially prolonged darkness in the north.

So I would be interested to know on what grounds Bednarik so lightly dismisses that this art could have any shamanic basis.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:03 am

I agree with Bednarik that shamanism had nothing to do with the origination of art. But I've also seen rock art that tends to be shamanistic. Usually there is a theme that has to do with the realities of everyday life, but there are exceptions, as I've said.

We have collected a lot of rock art in that thread. Why don't you bring specific ones forward that you feel are shamanistic. I'll try to agree or disagree as I can.

Since this study came out I'm kinda stuck in the paleolithic evolution argument. It's my first love.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:09 am

Yes, I'm finding it increasingly fascinating, I must say.

When I get home, I'll scan you in some pictures, and you can see what you think.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:46 am

Ok Ishtar, but there are many pictures already in the rock art thread. All you have to do is hit the quote button. I started it a year and a half ago and there's tons too choose from. If you would rather scan some in - put them in rock art please. Thanks.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:17 am

Yes, I will put them in the Rock Art thread.

I'd rather put in my own as it would take ages to go through all the existing ones, and there are some good ones in the Inside the Neolithic Mind book, which illustrates the point of view of Lewis Williams and Pearce, who are respectively Professor Emiritus and researcher at the Rock Art Research Institute at the University of Witwatersand in Johannesburg.

They also have produced a diagram that shows how the phosphene art directly corresponds to stage one of the altered state of the shamanic journey, so I'd like to scan that in too, if that's OK.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:19 am

As we know, realistically, this paper by Bednarik will be all but ignored. However, I have emailed John Hawks and asked him to please blog on it. We'll just have to wait and see.

Manystones · Post by **Manystones** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:30 am

Ishtar,

Unfortunately I too bought a Lewis-Williams book (Mind In The Cave), I wish I hadn't - a total waste of money.

I suggest that you at least read an article by Derek Hodgson comparing Neuro-Visual Theory with the Shamanism theory.. the Shaminism theory falls way short of explaining the available evidence. When I get home I'll see if I can dig it out for you. (https://secure.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/staff/Hodgson)

The issue is of course that we are as Bednarik puts it "alien" researchers and ultimately cannot know what someone else was thinking.

The problem is now that the "Shaminism" interpretation (after everything that is all it is) has almost come to be accepted as a truth rather like the short-range theory. This is not healthy for the discipline.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:02 am

I agree with you on the Mind in the Cave - it was very vague and woolly about why they thought what they did - the two authors I mean.

However, in Inside the Neolithic Mind, they bring together a group of people who've had altered experiences in different ways, and noted what they said about what's it's like, and what they see at various stages. They then compare those images to Upper Paleo art .... so it's a little more considered in its approach.

I probably wouldn't have said anything - because I know people get sick of me banging on about shamanism - if it weren't for the fact that Bednarik was so categoric and dismissive of phosphenes not being shamanic. I'd have understood if he'd said, like Beags did: "I don't think it's shamanic ... although some may be.." which indicates an open mind on the subject. But it blows my mind when someone who has never experienced the shamanic journey and its attendant visual imagery pronounces so definitely that a piece of art is not shamanic. It's like someone who's never in their life left the British Isles stating that the pyramids don't exist.

Anyway, I'll put the authors' views and examples up on the Rock Art thread later this evening and people can see it and make up their own minds.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:44 am

Hi, -- I'd be happy to write about it, because I like Bednarik's work.
But I don't have a copy of the paper. If you have a PDF, could you
send it along?

--John

This is an email I got from John Hawks. So I expect something in a day or two. Who knows what he'll say though?