On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:42:34 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[continued]
GM>Consider the reason for scalping, if it is scalping.
>"A similar rationale usually underlies the taking of scalps or heads or the
>eating of an enemy's flesh. A report, like Linton's that the Marquesans
>ate their dead foe because they liked the flavor of human meat, is indeed
>rare.
Yes. "ENEMY'S...FOE." This confirms my point about "no evidence that
this was necessarily "giving special treatment to the body or skeleton of a
COMRADE". Scalping is practiced by Homo sapiens on *ENEMIES*.
Furthermore the above is "reason for scalping" among "the Marquesans" a
South Pacific Island population of *Homo sapiens*. The relevance of why
0.2 kya Homo sapiens in the South Pacific scalped their enemies to why a
4,000 kya Homo heidelbergensis in Africa did it, is hard to see (to put it
mildly).
GM>The usual. reason for these customs lies in the belief that, by
>owning or ingesting part of a man, one gains his services or his talents.
>The belief of some primitives that killing or eating a lion imparts the
>beast's strength, stealth, stamina, lordliness, or courage typically rests
>on the same conception. True, the warrior who takes a scalp may receive no
>benefit from his deed until, when he dies, he has his victim as a slave in
>the afterlife, but the principle appears to be the same. By owning or
>controlling a part of a man's body, one gets the benefit of that man's
>powers andpotentialities.
Even here it is not necessarily religious. Gaining "the benefit of that man's
powers and potentialities" is not necessarily religious. They might see it as
*socially* benificial as us getting a university degree or investing in
property. Daniel Dennett points out that primitive people doing something
that looks religious to us moderns, is not necessarily religious to them:
"At this point I detect serious confusion on the part of at least some of the
contributors to this volume. They have a tendency to reserve "cognition"
for such elevated or "cultural" topics as religion, ritual and style of
government, as opposed to such mundane practicalities as agriculture and
self-defence-as if one could farm or hunt or build a shelter without
cognition, but needed cognition to engage in ritual when bury. Allied with
this is the surely anachronistic tendency to contrast religious practices with
"functional" practices. To our eyes, the systematic placement of carefully
conserved seeds into the ground in the spring is not a ritual, while the
systematic placement of ancestors bones into the ground on some other
occasion is. But this is only because we know the former "works" and the
latter, presumably, does not. The people who engaged in both practices
made no such distinction. For them a sacrificial altar and a dry storehouse
were equally functional, equally essential protections against the
vicissitudes of nature. Presumably these people really believed in the
efficacy of what they were doing; they were not, like many of today's
masters of ceremony, just "keeping a tradition alive" (Dennett D., "Sifting
the evidence for belief in the past", review of "The Ancient Mind: Elements
of Cognitive Archaeology", by Renfrew C. & Zubrow E.B.W., eds,
Cambridge University Press, pp195, New Scientist, 6 August 1994, pp41-
43)
GM>In fact, among some peoples, scalps and heads can
>be transferred, even sold, and the recipient of the gift or the purchase
>falls heir to supernatural benefits attached to these human remains.
>Likewise, it is not uncommon that such rewards go to all who eat of an
>enemy's corpse, not just to the person who killed the foeman." ~ Guy
>E.Swanson, The Birth of the Gods, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
>Press, 1960), p. 122-123
Selling scalps makes it even more unclear whether the primary motive is
religious or economic.
>>GM>Now lest anyone think that this is something that modern humans don't
>>>engage in, (i.e. the defleshing of human bones) medieval monasteries are
>>>filled with bones of monks, primates and saints whose bones were treated
>>>EXACTLY as those of the 600,000 Bodo man. ...
>SJ>In the case of Bodo Man, we are talking about *17* claimed cutmarks
>>on a part-cranium:
>>
>>"There are several interesting points associated with Bodo. Some
>>evidence suggests that animals were butchered at the site. Acheulian
>>tools (see Fig. 17-5c) are associated with several hippopotamus
>>skeletons, and cutmarks are found on the human skull (Conroy et al.,
>>1978). White (1986) examined the skull and counted 17 cutmark areas.
>>These are located in the interorbital area, on the supraorbital torus,
>>cheek bones, and on the posterior parietals. White believes this argues
>>"for a patterned intentional defleshing of this specimen by a hominid(s)
>>with (a) stone tool(s)" (White, 1986, p. 508). That is to say, Bodo was
>>scalped, and this is the earliest solid evidence for deliberate defleshing
>>(see Fig. 17-6, a and b)." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., 1991, p505)
>>
>>Glenn concludes citing no evidence at all that these 17 cutmarks on the
>>Bodo part-cranium are "EXACTLY" the same "as those on the "bones
>>of monks, primates and saints" in "medieval monasteries". Even if they
>>were the "exactly" the same (which is unlikely considering the medieval
>>monks no doubt used steel knives), it does not follow that the
*motives* were the same. Scalping a monk in a mortuary ritual in AD 1276
>>may look something like scalping General Custer in a battlefield in AD
>>1876, but the *motives* are entirely different! Assuming that the
>>motives of a *different species* Homo heidelbergensis in BC 400,076
>>are the same as either is a bit too much of a long bow to draw!
>>GM>No longer is it the case that modern humans or Neanderthals are
>>the first people who treated their dead specially.
GM>Your quote above argues for my position, Stephen.
No. It says at *best* that Bodo man *was* defleshed (which I had already
agreed with), but it says nothing about *why*. And 17 cutmarks on part of
a skull certainly does not "argue for" Glenn's "position" that it was
"EXACTLY" the same as that carried out on "monks, primates and saints"
in "medieval monasteries" let alone for the same *reasons*.
>SJ>The question-begging term "people" is noted! Glenn assumes what he
>>sets out to prove. If Homo heidelbergensis were "people" then there
>>would be no need even to produce evidence that they "treated their dead
>>specially." If they were "people" we could just assume it, becuase were
>>are "people" and we treat our dead specially.
>>
>>But in fact there is no evidence from the cuts on the Bodo part-cranium
>>that the owner was a) "dead" when he was scalped; or b) that he was
>>"treated...specially", ie. in the sense of a mortuary ritual. The Bodo Man
>>could just as easily been scalped by his *enemies*.
GM>So, what animal has enemies that scalp him? Only humans have
>'enemies' in the sense that you are using the term.
Having played on the word `human' next Glenn plays on the word
`animal'!
Animals also have enemies. Homo sapiens scalps both animals and fellow
Homo sapiens for a variety of reasons, ranging from: 1) food; 2) trophy of
war; 3) social; 4) economic; 5) respect for dead; 6) religious. A hominid
like Homo heidelbegensis could do it for reasons 1) - 3) or even for 6) and
still not prove anything about its ability to have a relationship with God.
Even when all the intelligent activity that sets hominids apart from the
animals that Glenn musters, there is still a *vast* gulf between them and
Homo sapiens. For example, if the IQs of animals and hominids could be
reduced to the same scale from 0 to 200 with average Homo sapiens at
100. Then conider this scenario:
1. The smartest non-hominid animal (eg. a chimp) might have an IQ of 5.
The chimp could do many things that other animals couldn't do, and what
only hominids and Homo sapiens can do, like making and using tools and
even using a form of sign language
2. The smartest hominid (say Homo neandertalensis) might have an IQ of
20 (4 times that of the smartest non-hominid animal). He would be able to
do many things that non-hominid animals can't do, like communicating in a
proto-language, making weapons and even imagining some form of after-
life.
3. The smartest Homo sapiens has an IQ of 200 (10 times that of the
smartest non-hominid animal). He was able to do things that the smartest
hominid could not do, like develop pure mathematical theories like the
Theory of Relativity, converse in a fully symbolic syntactic and have a
relationship with God.
On the above scenario, everything that Glenn posts regarding the abilities
of hominids could be granted but there would still be a *vast* gulf between
the smartest hominid and the smartest Homo sapiens.
Now I can imagine Glenn saying something like the gap between the
smartest hominid at IQ 20 and the stupidest Homo sapiens at IQ 20 might
be nil, and so the the smartest hominid must be human if the stupidest
Homo sapiens is human. But if we followed that `logic' then we could say
that the smartest chimp would be as smart as the stupidest hominid, so
chimps would be human too! Then we could go down the line linking
lower smartest with higher stupidest untill we would have to call bacteria
human!
The point is that we *know* that even the stupidest Homo sapiens
(excluding some who have brain damage) can speak a fuily syntactic
language and have a relationship with God. But there is no evidence that
the smartest hominids, for all their intellectual superiority over non-hominid
animals, could speak with any more than a rudimentary proto-language
amd had any deeper a religious life than respect for the dead and a beleif in
an after-life. Even granted all of Glenn's evidence (some of which is
doubtful to say the least), the gulf between hominids and Homo sapiens is
still *vast* and only Homo sapiens is *fully* human.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------