On Fri, 15 Sep 95 12:53:08 MDT you wrote:
GM>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.
JF>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.
JF>Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens certainly deserve to be
>called "human" rather than "ape", but the evidence suggests that
>although they had some of the behaviours we associate with
>human-ness, they weren't what we would consider "fully human".
Agreed. The key may have been complex language:
"Homo erectus was prevalent throughout Eurasia and Africa during the
Pleistocene Epoch, also called the Ice Age, because of the recurrent
cold weather that produced the glaciers of this epoch. Homo erectus
had an average brain size of 1,000 cc, but the shape of the skull
indicates that the areas of the brain necessary for memory, intellect,
and language were not well developed." (Mader S., "Biology", 3rd Ed.,
1990, Wm. C. Brown, Indiana, p435)
and
"Cro-Magnon (Homo sapiens sapiens) people lived about 40,000 years
ago. Their brain capacity was similar to ours (about 1,360 cc). They
were such accomplished hunters that some researchers believe they are
responsible for the extinction, during the Upper Pleistocene Epoch, of
many, large mammalian animals, such as the giant sloth, mammoth,
saber- toothed tiger, and giant ox. Because language would have
facilitated their ability to hunt such large animals, it's quite
possible that meaningful speech began at this time." (Mader, p437)
Regards.
Stephen