>>>> I don't see how anyone could conclude that the fossil people that
>> you described could be thought of as anything other than just as
>> human as you and I.
There are a few reasons. One is that there is as yet no evidence of
art-work from that far back, and the tools also are less sophisticated
than they are for Homo sapiens. They don't appear to have buried their
dead. Neandertals did, which is why their fossil record is so good.<<
Jim is correct about the lack of art in ancient hominid sites. However, that
may or may not mean anything. If the art was made of grass, say, straw dolls
or even of wood, it would not have survived. Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence under normal circumstances. There is evidence of the use
of red ochre prior to the first art and it may have been used as body paint.
However, I would feel better if some art object were found from such a
distant time.
A few weeks ago I mentioned that I heard Desmond Morris mention the 330,000
year old Golan Venus. I have been totally unable to find any documentation
for that object. As such, I will withdraw that claim as the oldest art until
such a time as I can find more evidence of its existence.
As to burial, there have been a few societies which do not bury their dead
but expose them. The Parsii of India and Persia build towers on top of which
the body is placed after death. They let the vultures take care of Auntie
Em. They may ultimately bury the bones in a mausoleum, I can't remember. We
had a Parsi exchange student once who told me this. This was all a little
embarassing to him in light of the way Americans usually react to the news
that Uncle Ed is thrown to the birds. But this type of arrangement will
leave little evidence in a million years.
There may be reasons other than lack of humanness which caused the lack of
burials and art among Homo erectus. This of course should not be construed
as proving that case. Just a possibility.
Note to Jim Bell. Hang in there, I will go away.
glenn