<<You were arguing for a sudden appearance. You are wrong.>>
The fact is shaman-art does suddenly appear, and it is recent. You are
misinformed (see, I'm the generous one).
<< You choose to define humanity by art. If I choose to
define humanity by mathematics I get a different time and it can not be until
around 3500 B.C. that mankind arose based on mathematics. If I choose
metallurgy, the date for humanity becomes 4000 B.C. If I choose farming,the
humans were created around 12,000 years ago. The only reason you choose to
define humanity by art is that it gives you the number you want. >>
No, I choose to define humanity by biblical, spiritual capacity. The number
takes care of itself. Man in communication with the spiritual realm suddenly
appears. There is nothing even remotely like it earlier.
<< If I choose
to define humanity be language and evidence for it, then I can go back at
least 2.0 million years ago to the advent of Broca's area in hominids.>>
And you'd have a lot of opposition from experts with no axes to grind. But
with shaman-art you won't, because it is the only evidence of spirituality we
have.
<<I gave you examples what is wrong with those examples? You simply ignore
them and ask me to present more evidence. >>
Just because you trot out an example doesn't mean your interpretation is
correct. As Ackerman stated, it is a "broad, philosophical problem." Look to
your philosophy. That may be where the problem is.
<<Are flutes not part of the arts? First flutes at 80-100,000 years ago.
There is no question about them being a flute.>>
You continue to obscure the line between shaman-art and all else. It's obvious
why. It is a philosohical presupposition. It is the only way to fit it into
your theory. We don't have to agree with you.
<< Merely to bring up a
red herring that a dating process might be wrong is useless. Which date is
wrong and why? If you can't tell me what is wrong woth a particular date then
your objection is merely smoke.>>
It's not my objection. It is the concern of, among others, Professor Rhys
Jones, an Australian National University prehistory expert. You want to accuse
him of red herrings? Go ahead. [Jones was referring to the dating of the
Jinmium rocks] The real question is, why are you so eager to accept all this
at immediate face value? Look to your philosophy...
<<There is no burst on the scene. The burst was simply because of
preservation. mankind went deep into caves in the Upper Paleolithic culture
where the art could be preserved. There are only about 5 examples of upper
paleolithic outdoor art. Figures carved on rocks. But because of these few
examples we know they made art outdoors. Erosional forces have removed all
but a few of these. The fact that you can claim a burst on the scene is
because of the greater preserving potential of deep caves.>>
Nice try, but it won't wash. They all made tools that were preserved. Why are
modern man's so much more advanced? Just a coincidence? The jump in art
complexity was at the same time as the jump in tool making and to articulate
language. Another coincidence?
<<This is image making 1.6 million years ago.>>
Get your mind of images. That is not the key. Representation is not. Listen:
Shaman-art is "an interface between the real world and the spirit world--a
passageway between the two. It is more than a medium for the images; it is an
essential part of the images and the ritual that went on there." [Leaky, The
Origin of Humankind, p. 117]
Your old apes don't have that.
>BTW, if birds can make tools and exhibit decorative art, what does that
> make them?
>What decorative art? Do you know of a bird painting an image of any kind?
Oh, so now you get to finesse the definitions. That's convenient. We have to
have actual PAINTING of images, or there is no artistic sense? Sorry, but
you'll have to be consistent: Birds make tools. Birds decorate their nests.
Birds sing. According to your criteria, they are human.
Jim