On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 22:56:17 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>"A discovery by Francois Rouzaud...suggests Neandertals were more
>sophisticated in their use of fire than previously believed...."
>Mark Berkowitz, "Neandertal News," Archaeology, Sept./Oct. 1996,
>p.22
SJ>I would have no problem if "Neandertals were able to use fire for
>illumination" but the fact that there is no evidence they did so,
>until just before the advent of Homo sapiens in Europe about
>35,000 years ago, and its location in "southern France" makes me
>suspect that this could have been an early advance party of Homo
>sapiens from Africa, 10,000 years before the main pulse.
GM>Good grief. What lengths we go to to avoid admitting the poor
>Neanderthal to the human family. This is not the only evidence of
>Neanderthal construction abilities. During the Mindel/Riss
>interglacial 200,000 years ago, Neanderthal and Lunel-Viel made
>several structures.
You persist with your word-play on the word "human". As you well
know, I do not deny that "Neanderthal" is "human", in the sense that
he is in the genus Homo. But I do deny that "Neanderthal" and other
hominids are *fully* "human". This human-fully human distinction is
made by anthropologists:
"From about 250,000 years ago, archaic sapiens individuals, including
Neanderthals, made tools from prepared flakes, and these assemblages,
including the Mousterian, comprised perhaps sixty identifiable tool
types. But the types remained unchanged for more than 200,000 years
a technological stasis that seems to deny the workings of the fully
human mind." (Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", 1994, p134).
"...could these advanced Acheuleans be described as human? In a
strict legalistic sense, I suppose they must be considered ex officio
humans, as members of the genus Homo. But that's not to say that we
would intuitively recognize them as such if we were to encounter a
group of them while out for a stroll on the savanna. In the absence
of an agreed functional definition to tell us what is human and what
is not, everyone has to make up his or her own mind; what is certain,
however, is that even the latest Acheuleans were far from fully human
as we are today." (Tattersall I., "The Fossil Trail, 1995,
pp242-243)
The distinction is also made by theologians:
"Rendle Short's tentative suggestion (op. cit., p. 81) that the
dwellers in Cain's city 'may conceivably have been members of a more
primitive type of man' - a suggestion, however, which did not
envisage them as fully human." (Kidner D., "Genesis: An
Introduction and Commentary" Tyndale Press: London, 1967, pp29-30)
"...the image of God is intrinsic to man. Man would not be human
without it. The meaning of this concept will be explored in chapter
23. Let it be said for the moment, however, that whatever it is that
sets man apart from the rest of the creation, he alone is capable of
having a conscious personal relationship with the Creator and of
responding to him. Man can know God and understand what the Creator
desires of him. Man can love, worship, and obey his Maker. In these
responses man is most completely fulfilling his Maker's intention for
him, and thus being most fully human, since humanity is defined in
terms of the image of God." (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology",
1985, p472)
The only people who claim that all hominids that are in the genus
Homo are fully human are yourself and YECs:
"The evolutionary model pictures man as slowly evolving from a non-
human ancestor, whereas the creation model requires man to be
created directly as man, with a fully human body and brain from the
beginning." (Morris H.M., "Scientific Creationism", 1985, p171)
"The most famous of all the so-called "missing links" is Homo
neanderthalensis, pictured for more than a hundred years as a
stooped, brutish character with heavy browridges and the crudest of
habits. Many skeletal remains of these people are available now,
however, and there is no longer any doubt that Neanderthal Man was
truly human, Homo sapiens, no more different from modern men than
the various tribes of modern men are from each other.
(Morris H.M., "Scientific Creationism", 1985, p175)
"With the discovery of other neanderthal skeletons, it: is now
known, however, that Neanderthal Man was fully erect and fully human."
(Huse S.M., "The Collapse of Evolution", 1993, p126)
"The Neanderthal reconstruction (top), giving a brutish appearance,
is based on a diseased specimen. Neanderthal was fully human"
(Wysong R.L.,"The Creation-Evolution Controversy", 1976, p298).
"It is now known that Neanderthal Man was fully erect and in many
details was indistinguishable from modern Man. His cranial capacity
even exceeded that of modern Man...Today he is classified
Homo sapiens-fully human." (Gish D., "Evolution: The Challenge of
the Fossil Record", 1986, pp204-205)
GM>"At Lunel-Viel a true dry stone wall almost 3 m long was also
>excavated...."~Brian Hayden "The Cultural Capacities of Neandertals
>", Journal of Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p. 132n >**
[...]
GM>"The possibility of lower Paleolithic stone pavements...."~Brian
>Hayden "The Cultural Capacities of Neandertals ", Journal of Human
>Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p. 132-133
Thanks to Glenn for these quotes, which, as all his quotes on this
topic do, document the emerging quality of full humanity!
GM>So are we to say that these were advance parties of homo sapiens
>prior to their first occurrence on earth?
In a very real sense they were indeed "advance parties of homo
sapiens." But the point is that they were not "homo sapiens".
SJ>Current thinking is that Homo sapiens was infiltrating into
>Western Europe at least 50,000 years ago:
>
>"...modern humans appeared in Western Europe 35,000 years ago and
>their modern behavior is immediately part of the archeological
>record. Or so it was assumed. Recently, this view has changed.
>western Europe is now recognized as something of a backwater, and we
>can discern a transformation sweeping across Europe, from east to
>west. Beginning about 50,000 years ago, in Eastern Europe, the
>existing Neanderthal populations disappeared and were replaced by
>modern humans...." (Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", 1994,
>p94)
GM>As near as I have been able to determine, the oldest anatomically modern
>skeleton on Europe was found at Dolni Vestonice 27,000 years ago. Prior to
>that it is assumption that Neanderthal could not make the Aurignacian tools.
>Anthropologists also used to think that Neanderthals could not make
>Chatelperronian tools, until they found Neanderthal skeletons at 2
>Chatelperonian sites.
Stringer believes that the "Chatelperronian tools" were indirectly due to
Homo sapiens:
"...at a Neanderthal site at Chatelperron in mid-France,
archaeologists uncovered tools that are far more sophisticated in
composition and construction than the normal Middle Palaeolithic
fare, and which have some similarities with Aurignacian implements.
'However, it now seems clear that Neanderthals only made advanced
tools in areas such as Chatelperron that were close to modern human
habitation,' says Hublin: In other words, they got their ideas from our
ancestors. Neanderthals were hunters, and I guess when they saw
modern humans using bone- pointed spears to kill animals they would
quickly have understood how to make the same objects. Similarly, it
was not until modern humans appeared in the Middle East that
Neanderthals began to bury their dead. In short, Neanderthals may
only have got this culture from modern humans, for in southern
Spain, where Homo sapiens were conspicuous by their absence until
after 30,000 years before present, they continued to make only
Middle Palaeolithic tools. (Stringer C., & McKie R., "African
Exodus, 1997, pp106-108)
GM>Next, the very earliest aurginacian occurs 39,000 years ago in far
>Western Europe, which was the territory of Neanderthal. If the
>Aurignacian was the product of modern man, why don't we find the earlist
>Aurignacian tools in Eastern Europe?
The same question could be asked if "the Aurignacian was the product of"
Neanderthal man! The point is that there was no Aurignacian tools until
Homo sapiens appeared:
"Elsewhere in Europe these basic scrapers and knives had been
replaced by Aurignacian tools - named after the site of their
discovery, Aurignac in southern France. This kit was far more
sophisticated in nature and first appeared about 40,000 years ago. It
is uniquely associated with Homo sapiens, and is characterised by its
long retouched blades; short, steep-sided scrapers, and bone points.
Until this time, bone tools had rarely been made. With the arrival of
the Aurignacian kit they became common in Europe. The Aurignacian
kit reveals an entirely new way of working stone, and demonstrated a
deeper, more complex form of thinking. A Neanderthal making a
Middle Palaeolithic stone tool would simply pick up a lump of flint,
and strike it with another stone until a handaxe or spearpoint had
been shaped. But when a modern human craftsman began his
Aurignacian handiwork, he or she would strike down at the top of the
flint block, shaving off many flint slivers which would ultimately have
many purposes - scrapers, knives, spearpoints, engraving tools,
piercers and much more - betraying the presence of a far more
complex mental template, one that clearly envisaged many
simultaneous options in a single act. Neanderthals basically exhibited
only one. They created a simple Palaeolithic penknife. Modern
humans produced a Stone Age Swiss Army knife." (Stringer C., &
McKie R., "African Exodus", 1997, pp106-107)
SJ>If this date of "47 600 years BP" was obtained solely by "radiocarbon"
>analysis, then it is unreliable:
>
>"...The only effective technology that was then available relied on
>radiocarbon dating, a technique that is only effective with remains
>less than 40,000 years old - which put the Levant sediments
>tantalisingly out of reach." (Stringer C., & McKie R., "African
>Exodus", 1997, p77)
GM>Conventional radiocarbon can not go beyond 40,000 years. Atomic mass
>spectra radiocarbon, which was not available in the 1970s can go much
>further back, to about 60-70,000 years. Stringer and McKie are talking
>about the historical development of the science.
OK. Thanks.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------