Hi Ed,

My better-half has just brought back the latest "Scientific American" from
town. I don't know whether this was the source of your comments about
Tattersall's ideas about the origin of man's conceptual thinking some time
ago (Thu, 20 Dec 2001 13:19:25 -0500), but I've just been reading his article.

I can't help but chuckle at some of the interpretations made by some of the
more refined anthropologists (such as museum curators). For example, the
drawings in the Lascaux caves are often considered to be proof of man's
religious instincts. Why can't they simply be drawings that they made in
order to teach their teenage sons various hunting strategies during the
dark winter evenings? (I'm not suggesting that early man didn't have
religious instincts -- far from it, I'm sure he did.)

In the case of this Scientific American article, Tattersall's
intellectualising goes one step further -- ridiculously in my view. In his
caption to the illustration of the Lascaux aurochs on page 45, Tattersall
talks of the "wealth of abstract symbols . . . above the neck and back and
on the haunches."  Well, I don't know about "wealth of abstract symbols".
There are just three stick-like things, all of which appear to be embedded
in the animals sides!  To my limited mind, they are clearly atlatls --
sprung hunting spears. These particular ones seem to be the early versions
of such where the springy launching stick is still attached to the spear
itself. (Later ones [requiring much more skill to throw] had separate
sticks and spears, the hunter retaining the launching part in his hand when
the spear was launched. Later still [10-15,000 years later] some genius
actually stretched a ligament or fibre between the ends of the springy
launching stick and launched a [short] spear from the ligament itself for
the first time. Hence the bow-and-arrow.)

My own view is that man's large brain (mainly the enlargement of the
frontal cortex) -- which is agreed by most neurophysiologists to be the
seat of foresight, patience, planning, and the restraint of action -- was a
product of the necessary disciplines that were involved in man's hunting
past, especially when hunting in a group. 

I think that the brain structures with the potential for abstract thinking
were laid down far further back than the rise of the hominids and early
man. Some scientists can now sing duets with birds in which the bird
listens and then responds, apparently 'meaningfully', with a different
phrase of their own (that is, not imitatively). The high-pitched squeaks of
baby mice (inaudible to our ears) to their mothers and siblings -- with
five or six "words" -- are considered to have a syntactical structure. And,
of course, it is well known that apes have a much enlarged lump on the
left-hand sides of their brains -- just where our verbal centre is.

Despite Galileo, we are still reluctant to get rid of anthropocentric
thinking -- as evidenced by Tattersall's particular brand of theorising and
several others like him.

Keith Hudson
  

 

 
__________________________________________________________
�Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in
order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow
_________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, Bath, England;  e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________

Reply via email to