They could also be simply idle doodling or decorations.
Yes, the specialist researchers didn't think of that.
Humans 40k yrs ago developed a system of conventional signs
31–40 of 74 posts
Re: Humans 40k yrs ago developed a system of conventional signs
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remain skeptical. Pictures in clouds.
What are you skeptical about? 40k years ago humans were just as we the humans of today, but they also faced harsher environments to survive in. Technology has enabled us to compound advanced intergenerationally but I don't really believe we're actually that special when compared to our forebears...
Given that pressure from natural selection has lessened a lot, chances are that we are less special now.
Our intellect evolved for survival, but now it's very much optional - has been for many generations. It and may now even be inversely correlated with having offspring.
I would be unsurprised if we're noticably dumber now than we used to be.
Re: Humans 40k yrs ago developed a system of conventional signs
#33They could also be simply idle doodling or decorations.
It's probably both, each lending to the existence of the other.
Re: Humans 40k yrs ago developed a system of conventional signs
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you skeptical about? 40k years ago humans were just as we the humans of today, but they also faced harsher environments to survive in. Technology has enabled us to compound advanced intergenerationally but I don't really believe we're actually that special when compared to our forebears...
Given that pressure from natural selection has lessened a lot, chances are that we are less special now. Our intellect evolved for survival, but now it's very much optional - has been for many generations. It and may now even be inversely correlated with having offspring. I would be unsurprised if we're noticably dumber now than we used to be.
We seem to be making up for it with better nutrition and medicine.
Re: Humans 40k yrs ago developed a system of conventional signs
#35[dead]
Re: Humans 40k yrs ago developed a system of conventional signs
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you skeptical about? 40k years ago humans were just as we the humans of today, but they also faced harsher environments to survive in. Technology has enabled us to compound advanced intergenerationally but I don't really believe we're actually that special when compared to our forebears...
Given that pressure from natural selection has lessened a lot, chances are that we are less special now. Our intellect evolved for survival, but now it's very much optional - has been for many generations. It and may now even be inversely correlated with having offspring. I would be unsurprised if we're noticably dumber now than we used to be.
Plus all the lead we spewed into the air for three generations.
Re: Humans 40k yrs ago developed a system of conventional signs
#37Absolutely fascinating study. I look forward to more as the density of materials rises.
I would observe that calligraphy such as in Islamic art, frequently conveys two messages. One is more abstract such as it's compelling beauty, but it can also be strongly representational. A word about swans in the shape of a Swan.
So I don't see "it's just decoration" as a strong rebuttal. It may be decorative. It can also convey meaning.
Re: Humans 40k yrs ago developed a system of conventional signs
#38The X's on the animal forms (Fig. 1B) ... isn't that likely to be "hit here" type markings, for hunting reference? Shoulder, side, stomach... surprised this wasn't really touched on in the paper, since it seems really likely. Though, the paper doesn't seem to care so much about the actual meanings, seemingly just narrowing down the number of possible interpretations /shrug
Some of the marks on it, particularly the head marks, are right over areas of the thickest bones. It's not impossible, but always worth being self-critical of "obvious" meanings with things like this.
Things that are straightforward even to us as non-expert megafaunal hunters would probably be completely obvious to actual experts (if it's not wrong), and people usually don't want to record the obvious stuff.
Re: Humans 40k yrs ago developed a system of conventional signs
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remain skeptical. Pictures in clouds.
What are you skeptical about? 40k years ago humans were just as we the humans of today, but they also faced harsher environments to survive in. Technology has enabled us to compound advanced intergenerationally but I don't really believe we're actually that special when compared to our forebears...
Take a look at Fig 1. A grid of dots. A sequence of X's. Does it mean "Property of Thag?" "Happy Birthday, Mom"? Are the X's there to improve one's grip on the object? Are they just idle doodling around the campfire? Hunter-gatherers have little use for writing.
We'll never know.
When I was young I was fascinated by drawing 5 pointed stars. It meant nothing.
Re: Humans 40k yrs ago developed a system of conventional signs
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry to be the wet blanket. However research on monkeys/apes has for the most part proven that their intelligence is at a dead end and never can progress past what is basically around human 2yo level.
Please quote your sources regarding monkey and ape intelligence with regards dead ends (whatever that means), wet blanket. Please also note you are just a wet blanket and not the wet blanket - that epithet is not normally sought after.
This is not the objective of this book, but The Language Puzzle discusses why primates have never exhibited any verbal language skill as we recognize it past the capability of a infant/toddler, even the best achieving examples we have of primates show they cannot manipulate language as well a child of four or five, and some of those studies with humans raising primates in their homes have some particularly unscientific bits, it also discusses why the vocal abilities of all other primates is lesser than humans and the language centers in brain that we think we know about in humans is also much lesser or not used to the same extent in other primates measured using MRI/anatomy studies, the progression of brain and vocal capabilities of homo sapiens progenitors to develop language via paleontology that shows the divergence from other primates, and many experiments with wild and captive primates of all types to demonstrate some language skill but nothing past very simple meaning for one sound, that might not be common to a geographically separate group, and not always the same meaning for the same group, and the inability of primates to use gestures without lots of prompting for communication. The highest form of communication I remember is one study that shows that orangutangs might be able to communicate a meaning of "in the future" via example warnings about snakes to young ones but you can read about that yourself, it seemed kind of speculative, too. Off top of my head it's a comprehensive overview of primate language research and evolution of physiology of brain/vocal abilities/hands. I don't agree with all the conclusions at end of the book (prior to this everything is based on what we have evidence for so there's a bit of speculation towards the end) but it's fun to think about.
Here's a decent review:https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/steven-mithen/the...