On Sat, 21 Sep 1996 14:17:22, Glenn Morton wrote:
[continued]
GM>And this does not include other objects like the neanderthal
>flute dated at 45,000 years ago
>(http://www.zrc-sazu.si/www/iza/piscal.html )
Even conceding that this was a "flute" (which is open to doubt since
it is broken and cannot be played and our resident musicians doubt
that it could have played), how is this a problem for Ross' view?
The date of "45,000 years ago" is well within Ross' 60,000 years for
Adam.
GM>and the Golan Venus Figurine dated to ca 330,000 years ago (see
>~L. A. Schepartz, "Language and Modern Human Origins," Yearbook of
>Physical Anthropology, 36:91-126(1993), p. 117 and Desmond Morris,
>The Human Animal, (New York: Crown Publishing, 1994), p. 186-188.)
I have looked the picture of this up in Morris, "The Human Animal",
and it is incredibly crude and may just be a lump of rock that Homo
erectus picked up. This is evidenced by it being the only one found
for hundreds of thousands of years. If Homo erectus had started
making stone replicas of women, then one would expect to find many of
them (because they would be as durable as stone tools), in an
ascending series of realism. Morris himself calls the Golan Venus
"extremely crude":
"A recent discovery in the Middle East has now pushed that date back
to three hundred thousand years...The newly found sculptural object
the most ancient man-made image in the world - is a small stone
figurine of a woman, unearthed at an archaeological site on the Golan
Heights. It is EXTREMELY CRUDE, but the head is clearly separated
from the body by an incised neck, and the arms are indicated by two
vertical grooves, apparently cut by a sharp flint tool. It is a find
that establishes the even greater antiquity of the human fascination
with symbolic images." (Morris D., "The Human Animal: A Personal
View of the Human Species", ISIS: Oxford UK, 1994, p192. My emphasis)
Indeed, if this is the best that Homo erectus or Archaic Homo sapiens
could so, then how could their putative ancestor, Homo habilis, have
built an Ark 5.2 million years before?
In any event, it seems that Marshack has downgraded the significance
of this "Golan Venus", because only a few months ago he was claiming
that a 54,000 year old engraved flint which also found in the Golan
Heights, was evidence that art began in the Middle East:
"The creation of the first artistic images is usually credited to
early Europeans, who some 33,000 years ago began carving vulvas and
animals on rock and ivory in France and Germany. The discovery of
this 54,000-year old, three inch wide engraved flint may change that
perception. The flint was excavated near the Syrian town of
Quneitra; in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights by Naama
Goren-Inbar of Jerusalem's Hebrew University. Both Neanderthals and
anatomically modern humans lived in the region when this image of
four nested arcs were engraved-with another piece of flint And both
were tool users and hunter-gatherers. But archeologist Alexander
Marshack of Harvard's Peabody Museum says it's most likely the artist
was a more modern human since known Neanderthal artifacts to date,
aside from tools, have been limited to things like beads and worked
ivory. Marshack doesn't know what the image represents. "When I
looked at it for the first time, it looked like a rainbow with rain,
but that's not what I'm saying it is," he says. "If I am correct,
and this is an early depiction, then you have evidence that art did
not begin in Europe. And if it was there in the Middle East, it was
probably also in Africa and Australia and in Asia. Europe was not
the beginning of everything." ("Early Etchings", Discover, Vol. 17,
No. 7, July 1996, p26)
The point is that if the Golan Venus at 330 kya found by Marshack was
the beginning of art in the Middle East, why is Marshack now saying
that an object found in the same area, that is *six* times younger
was "evidence that art did not begin in Europe"?
GM>Secondly, the impressive number of circles which have been carved
>into the site strikes me that this may have been a religious site.
>The circles average 1.2 inches wide and were carved everywhere,
>including 5 feet below the present soil level. Their shapes are
>said to be nearly perfect. On the monolith, there were 3500 carved
>circles and on another rock face a few feet away, 3,200 more circles
>were found.
One theory is that the cupules were used for navigation:
"The cupules are the size of a 20 c coin and have been carved
systematically, Dr Tacon said. "I believe that these were used for
many reasons, including navigation," he said. Dr Tacon told of
finding a chain of boulders covered in cupules leading on to another
chain similarly marked. The cupules had been particularly used to
show the pathways from one site to another', he said. " (Brook S.,
"Carvings may mark a pathway for nomads", The Australian, Monday
September 23, 1996, p4)
But the fact is that no one really knows what the cupules were for,
not even local aborigines:
"...circular engravings cover the rock surfaces, giving the dimpled
appearance of large red golf balls. Known as cupules, the markings
are many and mysterious; some theorize that they once indicated
pathways to water or food, but even the area's Aborigines aren't
certain. The markings, they say, have always been here." (Blair T.,
"Cradle Rocks", Time, October 7, 1996, p80)
GM>This does not sound to me like the action of a "soulish
>(not spiritual) creatures God made before he made humans" [to use
>Hugh Ross' words]. Why would an intelligent (but not spiritual),
>mammalian species suddenly be taken with fits of carving circles in
>rocks?
I don't agree with Ross' "soulish" - "spiritual" dichotomy, which is
an un-Biblical distinction. The Bible indicates that both man and
animals have a "spirit" (Ecc 3:21). "Soul" and "spirit" are generally
synonyms in the Bible, eg. "Therefore I will not keep
silent; I will speak out in the anguish of my spirit, I will complain
in the bitterness of my soul." (Job 7:11. See also Job 12:10; Isa
26:9). The only "soulish" - "spiritual" dichotomy in Scripture AFAIK
is between *Homo sapiens*:
"The man without the Spirit (Gk. psuchikos - "soulish") does not
accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are
foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are
spiritually (Gk. pneumatikos- "spiritual") discerned." (1Cor 2:14.
See also 1Cor 15:44,46)
GM>I have seen Buddhist temples in China with thousands of small
>alcoves (~2 inches tall) carved into the walls. Small Buddhist
>statues used to reside in these alcoves prior to the revolution in
>1949. To find someone willing to spend the vast quantities of time
>performing the exacting work of carving rock circles sounds more
>religious in nature than anything else. If this work is was done by
>archaic homo sapiens, it would imply that the they had some form of
>religion, at least to me.
See above. The experts think that the rock carvings were
more likely navigational:
"Carvings were also found at the mouth of holes and tunnels, pointing
to the possibility that they revealed a path for travellers. `Both
at the local level and at the larger level. there are indications of
that.' Dr Tacon said. Similar carvings have been found in Arnhem
Land, Kakadu National Park the Victoria River region and the
Kimberley mountain range. Australia was a much more arid land at the
time the carvings were made. The sea was much further away and a
land bridge linked Australia to Papua New Guinea. Aboriginal tribes
used the rivers as land routes to find food. `They had to travel
much further for food resources and perhaps even for water,' Dr Tacon
said." (Brook S., "Carvings may mark a pathway for nomads", The
Australian, Monday September 23, 1996, p4)
Another possibility is that it was for used trade:
"Another important trade route commenced on the northwest coast
of Western Australia...Ochre pigments, used regularly for body
decorations and the painting of artifacts, were traded widely from a
limited number of deposits." (Edwards R., Australian Aboriginal
Culture", Australian National Commission for UNESCO, Australian
Government Publishing Service: Canberra, second edition 1974
reprint, p36)
Glenn's anology between what modern day Buddhists mean when they
carve rock "statues" and what ancient aboriginals mean when the carve
rock cave walls, is tenuous to say the least! This is assuming that
"someone" carved all the "rock circles". They might have been built
up over time by many authors, as modern aboriginal rock carvings are:
"The engravings were made by scratching the outline of the subject
on the rock surface and then making a series of overlapping
punctures or pits to form a continuous groove which was gradually
widened and deepened by rubbing during rituals. Most of the
engravings are life-sized, but there are many unusually large
examples; huge kangaroos up to seven metres high, koalas near two
metres, emus five metres, human forms of ten metres and whales
eighteen metres long." (Edwards R., Australian Aboriginal Culture",
Australian National Commission for UNESCO, Australian
Government Publishing Service: Canberra, second edition 1974
reprint, p38)
and ancient ones were thought to be:
"The Australian continent abounds in Aboriginal rock art, both
paintings and engravings. Much of it lies in a 2,400-km- long,
boomerang-shaped area across the country's north coast.
Archaeologist Darrell Lewis of the Australian National University
estimates that there are at least 10,000 rock-art sites on the Arnhem
Land plateau alone, in the Northern Territory. `Each of these sites,'
he says, `can have several hundred paintings.' But unlike early
inhabitants of Europe, who frequently decorated caves over a short
period and then abandoned them, the Australian Aborigines would
return over and over to the same sites-a practice that still goes on
today. Unraveling the history of a single site can thus be extremely
complicated." (Lemonick M.D., "Odysseys of Early Man", TIME, February
13, 1995, p47)
But, having said that, I would have no problem if the carvings and
artefacts turn out to be the 176,000 years old, and if the art was
thought to be religious. I would however have a problem if the
cave art was as developed as the European Cro-Magnon cave art. But
it isn't:
"The simple design of the cupules indicated their extreme age, he [Dr
Tacon] said. Later forms of rock art became more complex as tribes
diversified and acquired different tools." (Brook S., "Carvings may
mark a pathway for nomads", The Australian, Monday September 23,
1996, p4)
GM>Thirdly, if the earlier dates for the occupation of Australia hold
>up, (dates from 116-176 thousand years ) then it would require that
>archaic Homo Sapiens actually built ocean going boats! Throughout
>the Pliocene and Pleistocene Australia and New Guinea have always
>been separated from the Asian mainland by at the least, 65 km. but
>most likely 80-100 km. This would require ocean voyages over the
>horizon to a land which could not be seen from the old land.
>Anthropologists do not believe that it is very probable that a man
>and woman were able to float across on a log. (see Clive Gamble,
>Timewalkers, p. 216). To have a being who is not an anatomically
>modern human build boats would be a major discovery indeed.
Agreed, it would be a "major discovery indeed" if "archaic Homo
Sapiens actually built ocean going boats", but according to Glenn,
Homo habilis built a three-decker ark, not "176 thousand years" ago,
but 5500 thousand years ago!
Of course it is possible that families of "archaic Homo Sapiens"
(whose brain size averaged about 1200 cc - Hominid FAQ), may have had
some primitive form of water transport (eg. a raft or dugout log)
that was blown off course in a tropical storm.
But it is already currently thought that the ancestors of the
Australian aborigines travelled by sea about 30,000 years ago in
"some sort of watercraft":
"The radiocarbon method of establishing the age of camp sites of
Aboriginals has demonstrated that their ancestors arrived in Australia
at least 30,000 years ago, and indications are that they came long
before. When the forebears of the Australian Aboriginals in ancient
times sailed across the sea lanes separating Australia from South-East
Asia they became the first known navigators." (McCarthy F.D., in
Edwards R., Australian Aboriginal Culture", Australian National
Commission for UNESCO, Australian Government Publishing
Service: Canberra, second edition 1974 reprint, preface)
GM>For the record, the earliest actual boat we have is from 6400
>B.C., long after the time we know mankind had been sailing the
>oceans. Why is this? Wooden objects decay quickly.
[...]
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------