Archaeologica.org

Once again, I am in the unfortunate position of having to disagree with you. There are some fundemental semantic differences when we speak of the genus Homo and the abstract quality we call "human" and I have already stated that the classification of Homo as a genus is based on somewhat arbitrary divisions and even among anthropologists is somewhat nebulous if some are still raising the possibility that chimps may also be "homo" based not only or the morphological similarities but more significantly on the genetic similarity. Obviously you don't think chimps will ever be called homo and neither do I. But it does demostrate very clearly how nebulous the lines between genii can be.

As for "human", the qualities which separate HSS from any other species in the genus are significant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Like most primates, humans are social by nature; however, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of cooperating and competing groups, ranging in scale from small families and partnerships to species-wide political, scientific and economic unions. Social interactions between humans have also established an extremely wide variety of traditions, rituals, ethics, values, social norms, and laws which form the basis of human society. Humans also have a marked appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.

Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only known species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies.

(Emphahsis added)

I am of the opinion, based on the evidence I have seen so far, many researchers are projecting their ethnocentric and anthropological biases into their interpretation of the artifacts. I think it is premature. That probably rubs you the wrong way. So be it. I am waiting for evidence and then I will happily change my opinions.

Well Monk, you're way out in left field and I can see that you don't realize it, or don't care. Your position can't even be called extremist. I'm not gonna join you out there. I think now that you came to this conversation with an agenda, but it can't have been to paint yourself into an odd corner.

Over the years I've had more discussions about HNS than I can remember, and you're the first person to say that he wasn't human. Given that, I look forward to our usual enjoyable discussions on other subjects.

Beagle -

"It would be much better if I had said that grave goods represent symbolic thinking. It is that level of thinking that is currently the focus of a lot of attention."

One more step.........

From the shorter OED.

Symbolic:

"Having the character of a symbol or representative sign or mark; constituting or serving as a symbol (of something) 1680.


Cognition:

The action or faculty of knowing; knowledge, consciousness 1796.


I will argue that symbolism is not the precursor of cognition, but a rather late and superficial effect.

I believe that this is what Jaynes was getting at in his book.

So.

Homo n. Was the line capable of cognition? I say yes. To a degree far higher than we give them credit for? Again, I say yes. Are we capable of recognizing this, given our intellectual preconditioning? I say no.

We tiptoe over this faultline and make the excuse that flowers and hematite - and thus the presumed afterlife - are the earliest examples of symbolic thinking. To me, cognition, and not symbolic thinking, is at the heart of the Homo n., Homo e., Homo s. argument.

Cognition requires no physical proof.

Symbolic thinking does.

There's the rub.

It is entirely possible that a person can be highly cognitive in a way we don't recognize, because they do not have any need to leave any physical symbols.

I think that Homo n. fits this description. They did not need symbols. And we keep on trying to shove symbols onto their remains, to fit our worldview.

john

FM, let's go back to that spear comment again ... way back 400,000 years ago in Germany. These weren't just spears for thrusting, but javelins made for flight. By the way, a shorter spear was found in the cache, apparently for thrusting. The maker was thinking ahead.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_19447778

It takes a fair amount of cognitive ability to cut down just the right spruce tree, imagining front-weighted javelins to be fashioned by carving for the hunt. These were weighted for throwing and penetration of game, not for thrusting. Homo erectus was more than an erect-walking hominid, but could plan, visualize and think ahead ... and with far less brain volume than his descendant, HSN. The article attached does not describe a subsistence animal, but something very human-like.

Small villages, javelins, rafts across deep ocean channels, sophisticated tool assemblages. Then later come burials with herbs and flowers. If these beings weren't capable of cognition, they put on a great act.

Meanwhile, pass me my club!

Again I am inclined to agree with John it is really about cognition....

However, who says Neanderthals didn't use symbolism? For instance there are some very clear and unambiguous flints from Fontmaure sculpted into the shape of fish, quadruped (possibly bovine), bird and human from the collection of Tedde Toet in the keeping of the Hague Museum.

http://www.neanderthalerart.com/about.html (deadlink now)

This site contains material that is at least 40.000 years
old, from the Chatelperronian and Mousterian, the
Neanderthal era.
In the thirties and forties of the twentieth century a local
amateur archaeologist Dr. Pradel undertook a lot of
excavations.

Shortly after Dr. Pradel declared the Fontmaure site as
non-yielding, Tedde Toet, a Dutch fossil and artefact
collector from The Hague, decided to explore the area with
a few friends. Besides the typical kind of tools they
found, there were also items of a different nature, that of
human and animal figures. Furthermore they came across
socalled symbolic stones, such as triangular stones, round
discs and stone balls, socalled 'bolas'.

At the beginning of this year the 'Museon', the education
museum in The Hague held a small exhibition 'Tolerated
Past' using the sub-title 'Neanderthal tools and art from
Fontmaure, France'.

These exhibits belong to the oldest art artefacts found
until now in Europe.

You bet. Cognition is where it's at.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 01039e6218

Abstract

Cognitive neuropsychology, cognitive anthropology, and cognitive archaeology are combined to yield a picture of Neandertal cognition in which expert performance via long-term working memory is the centerpiece of problem solving. This component of Neandertal cognition appears to have been modern in scope. However, Neandertals' working memory capacity, which is the ability to hold a variety of information in active attention, may not have been as large as that of modern humans. This characteristic helps us understand features of the archaeological record, such as the rarity of innovation, and allows us to make empirically based speculations about Neandertal personality.

Author Keywords: Author Keywords: Neandertal; Long-term working memory; Expert performance; Levallois

Alright ... nobody took the bait!

Who made the javelins?

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc ... 7/fob2.htm

And don't tell me Neanderthals made the javelins since nothing like them has been found in any caches, caves, whatever.

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see mention these spears were tipped with stone points. I have read that neanderthal had hafted tools but did he also use tipped spears or just sharpened sticks?

Quite a discovery finding spears which appear designed for throwing as well as stabbing.

Your link isn't working Cogs. At 400KYA one has to associate them with Heidelbergensis. We need to talk more about this fellow. But there was also a regular thrusting spear found in association with the javelins.

This would have been just before the HNS transition. I've always personally speculated that HNS needed his thrusting spear when he walked into any cave, even his own, as a cave bear may be inside. Javelins are no good in a cave.

Technology advanced however with HNS,ie, Mouseterian, Levalois. As did cognition. Heidelbergensis in Africa transitioned into HS.

The really big question, in all this mess, imo , is when did a 100% HSS appear.?
US. The guy that could finally beat HNS in a game of chess. Chess being a great example of cognition.

For what its worth, Cogs links worked for me.

I just tried it for the 3rd time, and it did work. I wasn't patient enough I guess. Thanks Monk.

The really big question, in all this mess, imo , is when did a 100% HSS appear.?

That's the problem Beags ... you cannot tell me whether the javelins were made by H. heidelbergensis, H. erectus or H. antecessor. However, the maker was proficient at design and obviously possessed well-developed frontal cortex.

Yes, cudos to the toolmaker. And such proficiency at 400,000 yrs. ago. Given that they were found in Germany, I would push the Heidelbergensis harder, but at that time Europe was just coming off a warm period. So Erectus is possible.

I think science is trying to clean up the nomenclature a little bit, and they need to. But there will be the usual bitter infighting, so it may take a while.
But right now, Heidelbergensis and antecessor are usually regarded as the same human. It was this fellow that most believe was the last common ancestor of HN and HS. He was a big brained fellow and moved all about both Europe and N Africa.

Some day we should have a thread on each of these guys.

Beagle wrote:Yes, cudos to the toolmaker. And such proficiency at 400,000 yrs. ago. Given that they were found in Germany, I would push the Heidelbergensis harder, but at that time Europe was just coming off a warm period. So Erectus is possible.

I think science is trying to clean up the nomenclature a little bit, and they need to. But there will be the usual bitter infighting, so it may take a while.
But right now, Heidelbergensis and antecessor are usually regarded as the same human. It was this fellow that most believe was the last common ancestor of HN and HS. He was a big brained fellow and moved all about both Europe and N Africa.

Some day we should have a thread on each of these guys.

In any case, the maker of those long pointy things had a well-developed cognitive sense.

They were well thought out weapons, i.e. functional tools which required sophisticated design elements, not symbols.

The other thing that absolutely strikes me is that they are multiples/repetitions of a given design.

That element alone, to build three instead of one, is a major argument for the cognitive abilities of the builder.

john

John, most scientists agree that HNS cognitive skills were on a par with modern man, but think he must have come up short in long range planning and a few other areas. If you're interested I can post a big scientific article for you. I usually don't do that because they can be a very long and tedious read.