December 12, 2003

• Somehow the ability was then lost. After the initial evidence of symbolic behaviour in Qafzeh about 100,000 years ago it disappears, only to emerge again about 13,000 years ago. Sometimes those scientist just doesn't have a clue. Just because those cavemen didn't left evidence doesn't means the ability of symbolic thought was lost. Species just can't devolve something that easily. Maybe they just grown out of that silly custom.
• I have to agree. The absence of evidence proves nothing. It may just be that subsequent symbolic acts were in less durable mediums. Though the custom itself does not seem silly. No sillier than dressing bodies up in really nice clothing before burying or burning them in it. Actually, I would like the idea of being buried when painted red - it would be like being born into a new life.
• I have to agree. The absence of evidence proves nothing. Or, as a wise man once said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". And guess what? There was nothing there!
• Just because those cavemen didn't left evidence doesn't means the ability of symbolic thought was lost. Or maybe the evidence of 100000 years ago isn't representative of symbolic thought.
• What prehistoric art and artifacts can tell us about the emergence of modern human behavior
• Though the custom itself does not seem silly. I was being funny. They stopped doing it so there must have been a reason other than they weren't intellectually capable of doing it anymore. Maybe in the future we will realize how wasteful is to dress dead peoples, as burying them with food, gold and living servants below a 480ft. stone pyramid is (well, not that much), and, instead, we will just dump them in the sea, or make soilent green. Who knows?
• ...dead peoples. It's just getting worse!
• 99,000 years ago saw the introduction of the new medium of "television", which mysteriously died out again almost 14,000 years ago.
• 99,000BC thru 14,000BC: Also known as the Flintstones era.
• These people are reaaaally stretching it. What if they just thought it was pretty? And also, so what? What are the implications of this discovery?
• Well, even if they did it just because it was pretty that implies that it conveyed something in their minds. If it was a custom then it must had some sort of simbolic value for them. Whatever that was. The implications are not so great. It's mainly a guide to scientists suppositions about when our symbolic mind came to be. And it could also help settle the debate between the blank slate theory of mind and the evolutionary one. Although I think this finding could be used to argue both sides, to no gain. I prefer to believe that our symbolic mind came to be as more complex social interactions pressured our evolution toward more plastic minds that could abstract and sort out finer complex external stimuli. But I'm no Phd-dude.
• Anybody else notice the words "not inconceivable"? Doesn't sound like a strong basis for an argument to me.
• The BBC showed a documentary about something similar earlier in the year. In this documentary, they showed evidence of symbolic thought from about 70,000 years ago, when they found pieces of ochre with markings and patterns on them in a cave in South Africa.
• Gosh! languagehat, you are right. After rereading the scientists comments, the value of the discovery for me drops to near zero. Another footnote for boring anthropology second-rate papers that nobody will ever read. Maybe the ochre comens from the painted pieces of stone they used to beat the guys to death. And they left evidence with the body. Guess they didn't fear the police finding out.
• Another footnote for boring anthropology second-rate papers that nobody will ever read. There's good science taking time for analysis and drawing from scrupulously acquired evidence, and then there's rushed science, done to meet a publishing deadline. Seems like we have more of the latter these days.