>A couple of miscellanea from other posts by Jim Bell:
JB>It also depends on the ability use language and symbols. Evidence
>for this does not exist beyond 40,000 years ago or so. As the
>experts explain, there is no such thing as a primitive language. It
>is an all-or-nothing event. That event occurred recently in history.
JF>There is no such thing as a primitive language *now, among Homo
>sapiens*. None of your quotes gives any reason to believe that
>earlier humans such as Homo erectus could not have had a more
>primitive form of language. The fact that we start finding complex
>cultural artifacts from 40,000 years ago does not prove that language
>arose at the same time.
>> My daughter's university Biology textbook says:
>> "Homo erectus was prevalent throughout Eurasia and Africa during the
>> Pleistocene Epoch (1-3 MYA), 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., Wm. C. Brown: Indiana, 1990, p435)
Not well developed, but not undeveloped either. This is not evidence
that Homo erectus did not have language.
>> 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
OK, this is a valid data point that some scientists may agree with your
position, although the term "meaningful speech" is a bit vague. Does it
mean that their speech wasn't as sophisticated as ours, or are they
saying earlier humans couldn't talk?
>> Of course, if this is correct, then H. sapiens sprang directly from H.
>> erectus, with no known intermediates. It would indeed be an
>> "explosion", on a par with the Big Bang and Cambrian explosion.
If you only accept Homo erectus and Homo sapiens as species, then the
lack of intermediates is not an artifact of the data, but a consequence
of the fact that each fossil will have to be pigeonholed into one of
those two categories.
There is a known intermediate. It is the group of fossils known as
archaic Homo sapiens, or sometimes Homo heidelbergensis. These are
fossils which do not seem to belong to Homo erectus, but although
similar enough to modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) to be (usually)
assigned to the same species, still look primitive. Even some fossils
that are in Homo sapiens sapiens are still considered slightly
primitive. There are neither large gaps nor sudden leaps in the
transition from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens.
JF>You treat this as if it was fact, when it is just one opinion, and
>probably very much a minority opinion. I think most scientists would
>attribute language to Homo erectus. After all they hunted and had stone
>tools and fire, I find it very hard to believe that they did not have
>some language.
>> Perhaps it is not such a "minority opinion" as you think? My
>> daughter's anthropology textbook says:
I think I have made a good case that it is a minority opinion.
Nevertheless, your claim was that human language appeared suddenly and
relatively recently, and that God hence had a hand in it. That argument
is untenable unless you have *strong* evidence that language did in fact
appear suddenly.
>> "Could the Zhoukoudian erectus/ speak? Their hunting and
>> technological skills would suggest they possessed some kind of
>> symbolic communication. If the skull was, in fact, used as a symbol
>> as we have speculated, then symbolic communication is even more
>> suggestive. However, this is a subject on which there is little
>> agreement Some anthropologists argue that the tools used by H. erectus
>> assumes speech capability; others study the evolution of the skull and
>> how the brain (e.g., Broca's area) was affected, and conclude speech
>> began quite early in hominid evolution (Falk, 1987). Still others
>> believe that speech did not originate until the Upper Paleolithic, or
>> at least cannot be proved until then (Davidson and Noble, 1989). At
>> this point, we agree with Falk when she says, "Unfortunately, what it
>> is going to take to settle the debate about when language originated
>> in hominids is a time machine. Until one becomes available, we can
>> only speculate about this fascinating and important question" (1989,
>> p. 141)" (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction To Physical
>> Anthropology", West Publishing Company: St. Paul, Fifth Edition,
>> 1991, p483)
You claim that the origin of human language is explosive, but most of
the opinions you cite here do not support that view, in fact it is not
clear that any scientists actually support it. It is only admitted as a
possibility. You can't claim that this explosion *must* have been
supernatural when you haven't even proved that it occurred.
I checked 5 of my books last night. Two of them had little or nothing
to say on the subject. Two of them were quite certain that Homo erectus
did have language:
This insight provides one of the reasons specialists are so sure
I doubt that Julian Jaynes counts as a specialist in paleoanthropology.
Homo erectus must have had some form of language: so many of their
activities required sharing thought. To carry out hunts such as those
documented by the varied archaeological evidence, they must have been
able to lay plans in advance; name animals and tools; identify places;
and refer to both the past and future. Moreover, the division of labor
that must have marked Homo erectus' society would have been all but
impossible if men and women had been unable to communicate about their
separate responsibilities or could not agree to meet at a particular
spot once food-gathering was completed. (Bernard Campbell, "Humankind
Emerging", 1985)
Even with the speech limitations that we might predict, Homo erectus
still would have been able to communicate a great deal about themselves
and the world around them. (Bernard Campbell, "Humankind Emerging", 1985)
Since the basicranium in unknown in unequivolcal specimens of
H. habilis, H. erectus is the earliest hominid for which articulate
speech can be inferred. (Richard Klein, "The Human Career", 1989)
The other source was slightly more ambiguous:
Spoken language as we understand it today law well in the future
[talking about H.erectus]
...gestural and vocal communication between individuals was considerable
more complex than in H. habilis
Another book, which may be more in your favor, is "Origins
Reconsidered", by Leakey and Lewin (1992). I don't have it handy at the
moment, but I think it may have talked about the possibility of a rapid
leap in language ability about 40,000 years ago. Even that, of course,
is not incompatible with Homo erectus having some language ability.
I'll have to check it when I'm next at the library.
In summary, I'm not currently aware of anyone who would count as an
expert who claims that Homo erectus did not have some language. Some
may consider it only a possibility.
>> "Homo habilis...The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is
>> visible in habilis brain casts, indicates it was probably capable of
>> rudimentary speech." (Jim Foley, "Fossil Hominids", Jan. 10, 1995).
>> Such "rudimentary speech" may have been "one sound/ one meaning":
Maybe, and maybe Homo erectus was more talented at speech.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort CollinsJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765* 1st 1.11 #4955 * "I am Homer of Borg! Prepare to be...OOooooo! Donuts!!!"