On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 14:33:51, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>Stephen Jones has raised some issues regarding art and other
>evidences of human activity from long ago. He wrote of the Golan
>Venus figurine:
SJ>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":
GM>The scoria pebble which has the form of a human female WAS a piece
>of rock that Homo erectus picked up. But he then modified it.
>Scoria, the material this figurine was made of is not common at the
>Berekhat Ram site. In fact, the only scoria pebble found was the
>one that was modified by human hands to create part of the figurine.
Glenn needs to re-read his own source! :-) The whole point of Marshack's
argument is that the Golan Venus is not "scoria" but "pyroclastic rock":
"In his note on the Berekhat Ram figurine, excavated from a late
Acheulian level and dated at ca. 230,000 B.P. CA 3 5: 674-75),
Pelcin argues that the figurine is scoria, as it was generically
described in the initial publication. He documents the fact that scoria
can acquire odd shapes and natural grooving and therefore
recommends that the Berekhat Ram figurine be subjected to
microscopic analysis. I performed such microscopic analysis in the
summer of 1994 and am preparing the results for publication. When I
presented the results to Sergio Peltz of the Geological Survey of
Israel Jerusalem, a specialist in scoria and the pyroclastic materials of
Israel, he examined the figurine and reported (personal
communication, October 23, 1994) that "the material of the figurine
was part of the matrix of a welded scoria deposit, but specifically the
figurine is not a scoria." (Marshack A., "On the `Geological'
Explanation of the Berekhat Ram Figurine," Current Anthropology,
36:3, June, 1995, p495)
GM>L.A. Schepartz writes:
>
> "Lower and Middle Paleolithic art is as rare as the earliest ornaments,
>but the evidence is accumulating, both within and outside Europe. The
>earliest known depiction of the human form is from the Acheulean site of
>Berekhat Ram, Israel, and predates 230,000 BP. A female form was detailed by
>altering the surface of a scoria pebble, which is the only piece of that
>material recovered from the excavations. It shows exaggeration of the female
>form, similar in that regard to Upper Paleolithic figurines from Europe.
I would urge Reflectorites to look at the photo of this claimed work
of art and judge for themselves. I have no problem if this is a work
of art, but Glenn should have! :-) It is *very* crude and if it is
an example of the art that early man was capable of producting 330
kya, it is a complete refutation of Glenn's view that early man was
capable of building a 3-decker Ark 5,500 kya.
GM>Another early art object is a mammoth tooth carved into a plaque
>and covered with red ochre from the Middle Paleolithic site of Tata
>in Hungary [dating to approximately 100,000 BP.
Same problem for Glenn! :-) What he really needs is an "early art
object...dating to approximately" 5,500,000 BP! :-)
GM>"Davidson and Noble represent the opposite position, rejecting all
>claims of symbolism before the Upper Paleolithic because the objects
>do not appear to have non-utilitarian functions or display
>recognizable, repeated symbols in the pre-Upper Paleolithic context.
>(It will be interesting to see how they interpret the Acheulean
>human figurine from Berekhat Ram.) ~L. A. Schepartz, "Language and
>Modern Human Origins," Yearbook of Physical Anthropology,
>36:91-126(1993), p. 11
>SJ>"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)
GM>So big deal. So what if the object is "EXTREMELY CRUDE". Have
>you ever seen the scupture and art made by my middle son? I would
>use a similar description for what he makes, and he is fully human.
No doubt, but presumably this "small stone figurine of a woman" was
the best that an *adult* could do, 330 kya.
SJ>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?
GM>Considering that Homo erectus was making wooden planks prior to
>240,000 years ago (maybe as old as 800,000 years ago, I would see
>little problem with boat building. (see S. Belitszky et al, "A
>Middle Pleistocene Wooden Plank with man-made Polish," Journal of
>Human Evolution, 1991, 20:349-353.) Evidence for homo erectus
>woodworking goes back 1.5 million years in the form of scratches
>characteristic of wood work found on stone tools from 1.5 million
>years ago. (see ~Kathy D. Schick and Nicholas Toth, Making Silent
>Stones Speak, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), p.160)
Again, I would have no problem with this. But making a piece of flat
wood and polishing it "1.5 million years" ago is a far cry from
building a 3-decker Ark more than *four times* earlier, ie. 5.5
million years ago.
>SJ>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 discovery of this 54,000-year old, three inch wide engraved
>flint...excavated near the Syrian town of Quneitra; in the
>Israeli-controlled Golan Heights...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..."If...this is an early
>depiction, then you have evidence that art did not begin in
>Europe.." ("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"?
>
>Have you ever considered that Marshack is trying to communicate in
>the Discover article with a JOURNALIST? There is also the fact that
>a scientific paper is in preparation by Marshack and others. It is
>usually not kosher to give scientific results to reporters before
>they appear in the journals.
This is the old fall-back position - that scientists are all poor
communicators! :-) Discover is not just any old mag. It is a
specialist science journal. If the journalist got it wrong Marshack
(and others) would be expected to write in demanding a correction. To
date he/they haven't.
GM>Last year Marshack wrote:
>
> "Peltz reported that it was clear that 'human hands had worked a
>fragment of pyroclastic rock, namely an indurated tuff.' The illustrations and
>arguments presented by Pelcin therefore do not apply. To complement my
>microscopic analysis, Peltz and N. Goren-Inbar are preparing an analytical
>paper on the geology of the site and the pyroclastic nature of the figurine.
>Until publication of these analyses, the debate on possible pre-Upper
>Paleolithic symboling may perhaps best be addressed not by suppositions at a
>distance but through the microscopic analysis of a late Middle Paleolithic
>incised composition from the site of Quneitra, Israel."~Alexander Marshack,
>"On the "Geological' Explanation of the Berekhat Ram Figurine," Current
>Anthropology, 36:3, June, 1995, p. 495.
Actually Marshack wrote this in *1994*. The article is headed:
"ALEXANDER MARSHACK Peabody Museum, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Mass. 02I38, U.S.A. 19 XII 94"
His Discovery remark was in *1996*, and must (in the absence of any
corrections) be regarded as his most recent thought on the subject.
>GM>Contrary to what you are seeming to imply, that Marshack is
>backing away from the Venus, the Venus figurine is gaining a growing
>group of supporters. Schepartz and Bednarik are a few among many.
>(Robert G. Bednarik, "Art Origins", Anthropos, 89(1994):169-180, p.
>170),
Which only goes to show that it can't be as conclusive as Glenn would
have us believe! :-)
>GM>Secondly, the impressive number of circles which have been carved
>into the site strikes me that this may have been a religious site...
SJ>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..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>Cupules are a staple of Neanderthal art also. They are also found
>in the Acheulian of India. (see ~Robert G. Bednarik, "Art Origins",
>Anthropos, 89(1994):169-180, p. 170-171)
The dating of these is controversial:
"Some 50,000 year old cupules have been found in Europe and there are
claims of 300,000 year-old Indian cupules, but Dr Tacon said the
scientific dating used in that case was unreliable." (Brook S.,
"Carvings may mark a pathway for nomads", The Australian, Monday
September 23, 1996, p4)
SJ>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..." (Brook S., "Carvings may mark a pathway for nomads",
>The Australian, Monday September 23, 1996, p4)
GM>In that case cupules are a form of writing which conveys
>information to a fellow human. Since Neanderthals also made cupules
>at La Ferrassie which dates to 70,000 years ago, would this imply
>that they had a form of written communication 70,000 years ago? In
>this case, it would seem to make Neanderthals fully human. You may
>be making my case for me.
Cupules are not "a form of writing", they are *signs*. A hospital I
worked at had coloured dots on the floor to guide patients and
visitors., but they were not "writing". The notices that explained
what the dots represented - *they* were writing.
I agree that "Neanderthals" were "human" but not "fully human". This
is evident from the difference between their upper limit and ours:
"Once modern humans became established there was a veritable
explosion of innovation. Painting, engraving, and tool manufacture
changed so quickly that archaeologists divide the periods from
thirty- five thousand years ago to ten thousand years ago into six
separate cultural periods, each with its own style of technology and
innovations. David Wilcox points out that by contrast the Neandertal
populations displayed cultural stasis like Homo erectus. The
Mousterian tool culture that they developed appeared around one
hundred thousand years ago and remained basically uniform across
Europe for sixty-five thousand years. The modem humans that
apparently replaced the Neandertals were, in less than half their
tenure, walking on the moon!" (Templeton J.M. & Herrmann R.L., "Is
God the Only Reality?: Science Points to a Deeper Meaning of the
Universe", Continuum: New York, 1994, p135)
SJ>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)
>
GM>[snip]
>
>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:
GM>While not yet generally accepted, there has been one report of an
>animal drawn by a Homo erectus.
Same reply as above. :-)
SJ>"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!...To
>have a being who is not an anatomically modern human build boats
>would be a major discovery indeed.
SJ>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!
GM>It may have been erectus. Woodworking has been with us as long as
>Homo has been on earth. According to the wear patterns on
>Neanderthal tools, they were more often used to work wood than to do
>anything else! (Donald C. Johanson, Lenora Johanson, and Blake
>Edgar, Ancestors, (New York: Villard Books, 1994), p. 275)
Same problem for Glenn, whether it was habilis, erectus or "archaic
Homo Sapiens! :-)
SJ>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.
GM>Don't forget that some modern executives have brain sizes of
around 100 cc! John Lorber writes:
>
>"Well over 500 CT scans were performed on patients, some of whom
>were over 20 years of age. These included some who already occupied
>responsible positions in life,....They obviously had slow
>progressive hydrocephalus which did not detectably interfere with
>their life style...some had such enormously dilated ventricles there
>was hardly any brain left ABOVE THE LEVEL OF THE TENTORIUM. They
>retained the midbrain cerebellum and pons but what was virtually
>missing was the part of the brain we attribute to superior
>intelligence ; the centres for the fin control of movements and the
>appreciation of visual and auditory stimuli...I can only presume
>hydrocephalus with only moderately raised intracranial pressure can
>slowly progress over many years to reach eventually extreme degrees
>without ever causing symptoms. It is possible that specific
>functions of the brain, such as the motor cortex, MAY BE RELOCATED
>ELSEWHERE from early infancy onwards or that we do not need such a
>large quantity of brain and only need to use a very small part of it
>under normal circumstances."~John Lorber, "Is your Brain really
>Necessary?", Nursing Mirror, April 30, 1981, p. 20 (SJ's emphasis)
>
>Brain size is not necessary in order for one to be intelligent and
>capable of buidling boats.
Lorber is not saying that these hydrocephalics "have brain sizes of
around 100 cc" but because of the slow progression of the disease
their upper brain functions have had time to be relocated to the mid
and lower brain.
But in any event Glenn has (perhaps unconsciously) seized on my
mention of "brain size" as a red-herring, to distract attention from
his major difficulty. According to him, if "archaic Homo Sapiens
actually built ocean going boats" it "would be a major discovery".
But the point is that Glenn's 5.5 mya H. habilis/erectus Adam theory
requires that the *ancestor* of "archaic Homo Sapiens', namely "Homo
habilis" (or erectus) "built a three-decker ark, not "176 thousand
years" ago, but 5500 thousand years ago". I repeat *5500 THOUSAND
years ago*. That is more than THIRTY TIMES as long ago!
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------