You wrote:
>Glen said on 12 June 1996:
>"Things are too quiet around here"
>
>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.
>
That Nature article was a fascinating one. And I agree with you whole
heartedly. It does not matter whether Neanderthal traded or made it. We
don't engage in trade with the chimpanzees or gorillas. Thus, if
Neanderthal was intelligent enough to engage in trade then it is difficult
to say he is not a human in the sense of "being made in the image".
Trade requires language. If he made the object then he has an aesthetic
sense like us.
The implications are that Neanderthal first appears in rocks dated at
230-225,000 years ago at Pontnewydd, England and Ehringsdorf, Germany.
(See Stringer and Gamble, In Search of the Neanderthals_,
1993, p. 66-67). Thus if you grant humanity to Neanderthal, Humanity then
definitely extends back to 230,000 years ago. Which is one of my points
from last fall that evidence of human activity goes back at least 2.7
million years ago. Thus Adam must be further back than most Christians
want to believe.
Secondly, we have a human who is decidedly different from us and our
definition of humanity must be broadened. Most Christians only allow
anatomically modern humans to be human because of our fear of evolution.
>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.
>
Since we don't mate with our ears it is not a foregone conclusion that we
and they could not interbreed. I often like to ask people to feel the
very back of their head. If you feel a little bump on the very back
center of your head, there is a liklihood that you are descended from a
Neanderthal. The only fossil man who had that bump (called an occipital
bun) was Neanderthal who lived in Europe. The only modern populations who
have this bump are modern Europeans. I think this is evidence our our
relationship with Neanderthal.
>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?
I have heard of this "flute" supposedly dated at 40,000 years, but have
been unable to find it in the scientific literature. A
paleoanthropological grad student from Finland claims to have seen it and
the guy he cites as having found it is a real archaeologist. But on
internet anyone can claim to be a grad student in whatever they wish to
be.
I think I was wrong in that Oct. 21 post or I was replying to Stephen.
The earliest flute I have found comes from 30,000 years ago.
"Music assumed an important role; the first known instrument, a bone flute
found in France, dates to around 30,000 years ago."~Bruce Bower, "When the
Human Spirt Soared," Science News, 130, Dec. 13, 1986, p. 378
Thus, an additional 10,000 years for the Neanderthal flute is not out of
the question. But if anyone has a real reference to the flute David is
talking about, I would love to have the reference.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm