I knew you'd stir things up, Glen! Welcome back! Just remember
that academics have a heavy load of marking and admin at this
time of year (at least in the UK!).
You've motivated me to post something I have not properly prepared,
but I hope you will accept my apologies for that.
I've been reading the paper by J-J Hublin, F Spoor, et al in
Nature (16th May 1996), 224-6: "A late Neanderthal associated
with Upper Palaeolithic artefacts". A study of the bony
labyrinth of an infant hominid revealed it to be a Neanderthal -
representative of the "youngest known Neanderthal populations".
"These hominids used a rich bone industry as well as personal
ornaments". "The evidence ... [suggests] a high degree of
acculturation". In the case of personal ornaments, "we may be
facing evidence of a trading process rather than the result of
technical imitation of modern human technology by Neanderthals".
I found this interesting, as I'm aware that the trend today is
to emphasise the distinctness of H.s. sapiens and H.s.
neanderthalis. Here are Neanderthals who used personal ornaments
- an evidence of aesthetic values. Whether they traded or
constructed is not so significant, it seems to me. (Although I
see no reason to doubt the thought that they COULD have made
these ornaments). Knowing that Neanderthal burials have been
found, the evidence that the Neanderthals are true humans is
growing. I'm interpreting the aesthetic values as an aspect of
image-bearing.
Then, I read the following in _The Daily Telegraph_ (17th May):
Adrian Berry, the science correspondent, had been talking with
Fred Spoor, a co-author of the paper in _Nature_. Several additional
points emerge from this report. Fred Spoor says:
"There were fundamental physical differences that might have
prevented the two species from mating and having young"
"Their inner ear canals contained a bone that we do not have,
that would have forced them to have elongated-shaped brains."
[Neanderthals] "lacked the human ability to communicate by
abstract thought that we see in our ancestors' cave paintings".
My problem with these quotes is that I don't know what the first
two points are referring to; and I'm not convinced that the
latter point leads to the specific conclusion drawn by Spoor.
But this is where I've not been able to do my homework properly -
and I write this looking for feedback from others.
The other report I've seen recently, but have lost the source!,
is of the discovery of a Palaeolithic pipe. I THINK it was
associated with Neanderthals, but my memory fails me. I thought
Glen might know of this, as I have preserved his post of 21
October 1995 in the thread "Human explosion":
-------------------------------
Musical instruments: Genesis 4:21 NIV His brother's name was
Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute."
Apparently the first musical instruments known of in the
archaeological record come from pictures in Sumer from 3,500 B.C.
So the view of a 50,000 year old Adam leaves a huge gap between
Adam and Jubal a gap of several tens of thousands of years.
Remember, we can't say that there were musical instruments prior
to 3,500 B.C. because there is no evidence of them. We want
to be consistent with the criticisms of my views.
------------------------------
This Palaeolithic Pipe shifts the "first" musical instrument back
a long way, and is evidence for "image-bearing" in whatever group
of hominids it is associated with.
The more general discussion point is: is this a valid use of
Biblical revelation? Genesis 3 and 4 give us a variety of skills
and aesthetic values which mark the descendants of Adam and
illustrate aspects of what it means to be made in God's image.
Can we use these data to assist understanding of the fragmentary
archaeological record?
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***