Archaeologica.org

Digit wrote:It's the line of thought that explains what we know about them Ish, so until someone comes up a better one it's the one for me.
It explains why the caves appear not have practice areas, it explains the lack of acessibility shown in many cases and gives a good explanation for why the practice ceased.
For me it also suggests that very possibly HSN was the progeniter of our artistic/spritual side with HS being the Philistine. It also gives support to the idea that we are hybrids.
Here Das Klub members suffer multiple heart attacks!

Digit & All -

I think I'm coming back from the flu/dead.

http://www.mamarocks.com/hand_jive.htm

So is it merely the linguistics, or the structure of formal physical congnitive movements, cave paintings, dance, the hyperreal aesthetics of hunting gear, boats, daily tools - including,yes, handaxes......?

If I had to subsist on language only as a way to communicate, I'd die.


hoka hey

john

Hope you feel better.

Manystones wrote:
and Ish,

don't expect me to hang around here and demonstrate how wrong you are.

Oh Manystones .... please don't say that!

Now you've really upset me ... I've been really hoping and praying to be instructed by such an expert as yourself on what constitutes the shamanic. Some great soul who, merely by taking a drug one day, gained access to the holy portals of the mind of God himself.

Now I guess I'll never find out!

I actually love it i mean it explains so much especially to do with web site experts for example the abilty to make sounds from their eating orofice doesnt mean inteligence?????

And yet you keep coming back, fossiltrader.

Maybe it's the attraction of hearing from people who can construct a sentence grammatically.

Sorry John but I don't grasp your point.
FT, there two large holes in that link, one, there is no proven link between cranial capacity and intelligence, and two, the existance or positioning of a hyoid bone does not prove ability to speak.

Roy.

So I guess we're saying, Dig, that we don't know what causes intellligence, and we don't know what makes us capable of speech ... or am I carrying this too far?

Yes in part, I think. Absolute cranial capacity is irrelevant, if not the Blue Whale and the Elephant would leave us standing.
People therefore quote brain mass as a percenrage of body mass as an index, that makes the House Mouse significantly brighter than our selves!
Your PC may well have vastly more capacity than mine, but till such time as it is correctly programmed it is simply a collection of parts, the brain's neural paths seem to be much more important then the mere number of cells.
I have argued for years about HSN as I stated earlier, but some of the evidence put forward, pro or con, is ridiculous.
Take FT's post about Hyoid bones. As I pointed out earlier ALL necessary structures have to be in place and work correctly for meaningful speech. Remove one and you get, possibly a Chimp, that can understand speech but not vocalise it.
Or you get and Indian Hill Minah or African Grey Parrot that can vocalise as well as you and I, but in no meaningful manner.
And a point for FT and the experts the Minah and the African Grey don't have a Hyoid bone between them!

Roy.

Ahh - but it's been shown that the Quaker Parrot can actually build meaningful sentences - albeit depending on their vocabulary. And there was that gorilla that could communicate via computer her wants and thoughts - and she also used sign language.

I know, that is my point Rich, the sign language takes the place of the ability to vocalise sufficiently well.
All necessary functions have to exist at the same time for vocal language!
The mechanics of speech may well have existed in Homo for millions of years before the brain was capable of utilising them!

Roy.

Gotcha - true. And language is constantly misunderstood without the rest to go with it, and sometimes even then. But it's one of the best tools we have.

I understand your point digit remember my personal view is that language started far earlier than previuosly thought.
But such people as Ian Davidson in his book Human Evolution Language And Mind refuses to believe along with many others that sign language was ever an acceptable alternative to speech.
His logic being that sign language does not contain syntax nor has the abilty to carry syntax therefore is too limited .
Dont shoot the messenger Digit this sort of thing we face here everday hence the group i belong to work outside academia looking for language signs in lithics and site location so far we found some interesting tools but there years to go before we have anything concrete.
And remember even after i sent him the article on the south American orphans that not only developed their own sign language but it also carried syntax he still promotes his book.

Digit wrote:Sorry John but I don't grasp your point.
FT, there two large holes in that link, one, there is no proven link between cranial capacity and intelligence, and two, the existance or positioning of a hyoid bone does not prove ability to speak.

Roy.

Digit -

Sorry - I was jumping ahead.

Cranial capacity and intelligence have no known cause and effect relationship, in my experience.

Furthermore, I'll add that cranial capacity and the capacity for cognition have no known cause and effect relationship.

I have a pretty good feel for cognition - those who go on about the existence of intelligence, in any sense, have a long way to go with me.

The hyoid bone definitely allows and individual to make a variety of noises;

It is the Jew's harp of the anthropoid throat.

Where I was going is this: We have arbitrarily assigned language

To the "God" position of demonstrable "intelligence".

Which is, I think, a whole lot of hooey, given

All the other methods of communication demonstrated by those who

Recognizably possess cognition.

Cf: If the painters of Chauvet Cave could not speak a word, is the communication necessarily degraded or less?

(Compare, for example, to GW Bush's weekly homily, today.)


hoka hey



john

Morning FT, you misunderstood me I think, it was what you posted that I argued against, not your personal opinion.
John, in the anthropoid throat, yes, but it's existance in a collection of bones does not prove an ability to speak anymore than a skull provides proof of intelligence.
In anthropoids it is also the position of the Hyoid bone that is imprtant and a skeleton is most unlike to provide much evidence of that.

Roy.

So then actually what we're talking about here is energy and not matter - although all matter is just solidified energy that dances in different ways and at different speeds. But in this case the energy took the form of consciousness that developed in a certain direction.