>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.
>
By this definition, the burial of the dead with grave goods, which
Neanderthal engaged in, is evidence of spirituality. Look at all this evidence
for religion prior to theadvent of shaman art, Jim.
"At mount Carmel, some large animal jawbones were included in the burial. At
Teshik-Tash in Uzbekistan, a child's corpse was surrounded by six pairs of
goats' horns, whose points ere pushed into the ground.
"Where grave goods are buried with the dead among present-day peoples,
the practice is usually associated with the idea of an afterlife and with the
notion that the spirit of the dead person will use the object in the other
world."~Victor Barnouw, An Introduction to Anthropology: Physical Antrhopology
and Archaeology, Vol. 1, (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1982) p. 156
Since the concept of an afterlife is a spiritual concept and since Neanderthal
engaged in it as long ago as 80,000 years I fail to see how you can reject
them from the human family.
Dean Falk says similar things:
When do the concepts of death and an afterlife first appear? Although a
precise answer may never be determined, the fossil record does provide some
upper limits for the appearance of religious behaviors.
"Certainly big-brained, but beleaguered Neandertals had some sort of
religion. As far as we know, they were the first hominids to bury their dead.
Times were cold and the earth was frozen hard. Consequently, Neandertals often
buried their dead in small graves, with corpses in flexed or semiflexed
positions.Despite the practicality of their burials, by 50,000 years ago some
Neandertal graves had become quite spectacular. For instance, analysis of
pollen deposits from Shanidar Cave in northeastern Iraq indicates that the
grave of an adult male may have been covered with an assortment of colorful
flowers.
"From our Western perspective, we might be tempted to view other
examples of Neandertal's treatment of the dead as ghoulish. For example,
there's the lad from a shallow grave in Teshik-Tash, Russia,whose remains were
surrounded by numerous pairs of goat horns. An equally intriguing find emerged
with the discovery of a cave that had been closed for many thousands of years
in Monte Circeo Italy. Within the cave, a Neandertal skull was found resting
bottom up in the middle of a circle of rocks. The base of the skull was broken
away as if the brains had been deliberately removed. NOr was this the first
sign of a possible cannibalistic ceremony in the fossil record! Perhaps as
long ago as half a million years, Homo erectus had acquired the unsavory habit
of breaking into the braincases of his dead brethren.
"Although the reader may flinch at the suggestion that cannibalism
indicates higher cognitive abilities, historical records indicate that
cannibalism practiced by Homo sapiens in the late nineteenth and first half of
the twentieth centuries served ceremonial more than nutritive purposes."~Dean
Falk, Braindance,(New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1992), p. 181-182
"We, of course, have no way of knowing what Homo erectus thought about
death or a possible afterlife. We do know, however, that there are a large
number of Homo erectus skullcaps that look as though they have been
deliberately opened. Too many, I think, to be mere coincidence. If Homo
erectus did practice cannibalism, it could have been for any number of reasons
documented in historical times. These include intertribal warfare, personal
revenge, punishment, or rituals associated with rites of passage, such as
birth, formal entrance into manhood, marriage, or death. Or perhaps Homo
erectus simply ate the brains of his victims to assimilate their powers. We'll
never know for sure. But on thing is certain. Unless the numerous faceless,
bottomless skullcaps from Java and China occurred coincidentally by pure, dumb
luck, Homo erectus did have a concept of death. And that's not bad information
processing for 1,000 cm3 of brains."~Dean Falk, Braindance,(New York: Henry
Holt and Co., 1992), p. 183
"There are other implications of religious beliefs held by Neanderthals
in the collections of bear skulls found in their caves. The mere preservation
of skulls need not suggest anything religious, but in some cases special
attention was given to their placement. In one cave, five bear skulls were
found in niches in the cave wall. The skulls of several cave bears in a group
have been found surrrounded by built-up stone walls, with some skulls having
little stones placed around them, while others were set out on slabs.
"All this suggests some kind of bear cult, like that practiced until
quite recently by the Chippewa and other North American Indians. After a
Chippewa hunter had killed a bear, he would cut off the head, which was then
decorated with beads and ribbons (in the period after contact with Europeans).
Some tobacco was placed before its nose. The hunter would then make a little
speech, apologizing to the bear for having had to kill it. Bear skulls were
preserved and hung up on trees so that dogs and wolves could not get at them.
Bear ceremonialism of this and related kinds had a wide circumpolar
distribution--from the Great Lakes to the Ainu of northern Japan through
various Siberian tribes, such as the Ostyaks and the Orochi, to the Finns and
Lapps of Scandinavia. So wide a distribution of this trait, associated as it
was with other apparently very early circumpolar traits, suggests great age.
It is possible, therefore,that some aspects of this bear ceremonialsim go back
to Middle Paleolithic times."~Victor Barnouw, An Introduction to Anthropology:
Physical Antrhopology and Archaeology, Vol. 1, (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey
Press, 1982) p. 156-157
"After discussing the Regourdou Neandertal and bear remains with Eugene
Bonifay and Bernard Vandermeersch, and after examining photographs of features
as well as artefacts from the site, I am also convinced that both the human
and at least some of the bear remains were intentionally placed in the cave
and buried."~Brian Hayden "The Cultural Capacities of Neandertals ", Journal
of Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p. 121
"All Mousterian burials are associated with living floors, except
Regourdou, where the burial was placed in a sort of bear sanctuary in Layer
IV, which was very elaborately constructed but showed no traces of regular
habitation."~Yuri Smirnov "Intentional Human Burial: Middle Paleolithic (Last
Glaciation) Beginnings," Journal of World Prehistory, 3:2(1989), pp 199-233,
p. 220
If these activities were performed by modern men you would agree that it was
evidence of their spirituality but because you cannot accept Neanderthal as
human, you must reject this evidence.
><< 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 don't know, it seems that the above experts take my position that
spirituality was in existence prior to 33,000 years ago. 33,000 years ago is
the date of the youngest Neanderthal but Neanderthal engaged in behaviors we
would call human if it were done by an anatomically modern human. I think in
reality you are defining humanity based upon those who look like us.
>
><<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.
So we are to ignore art if it is prior to 33,000 years ago because it is
philosophically impure to pay attention to it?
>
><<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 obvio
>us 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.
No you don't have to agree with me. That is not required. And you don't have
to pay attention to art older than 33,000 years ago if you don't want to.
That is most assuredly your perogative.
>
>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...
So what exactly is wrong with my philosophy? What do you think my philosophy
is?
>
><<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?
Wait aminute please. You have no evidence for the appearance of the brain
structures controlling language appearing 30,000 years ago. Anatomically
modern men appeared 110-120,000 years ago in Southern Africa. They were just
like us but they didn't speak?? Broca's area of the brain which is essential
to speech appears in skull KNM-ER 1470 and dates to nearly 2.0 million years
ago. Sorry, but your assertion isn't correct here either.
>
><<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]
That is an INTERPRETATION of that form of art; nothing more. I do agree
that this was an expression of spirituality. But so is the burial in flexed
positions with grave goods an expression of spirituality. So is the ritual
placement of bear skulls.
>
>Your old apes don't have that.
Are the anatomically modern men from 120,000 years ago,just old apes?
>
>>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.
Please be consistent. You want me to have "finesse of definitions" but you
are exempt from your own standard?
>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.
NO. Birds don't make tools with which to make other tools. Men do and have
at least since 1.8 myr ago.
Birds don't make tools(instruments) with which to make music. Men do and have
since at least 80,000 years ago.
Birds don't make artistic images of objects. Men do and have since at least
1.6 Myr ago.
Birds don't paint their bodies. Men do and have since 1.8 myr ago.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm