Homo Actorus like Ronald
Reaganus. Sounds like the end of the Roman Empire.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 10:43
AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Novelty-seeking
Man (was: Simplified economics (was: Trust and suspicion)
Keith,
Where would you put Arnold Schwartzeneger?
Bill
At 20:21 03/06/2003 -0700, you wrote:
As usual after the weekend, I'm
grinding slowly through catchup...
On Sun, 01 Jun 2003, Keith
Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In particular, the fourfold description distinguishes
us from Homo >Neanderthalensis who lived very happily and stably
for about 500,000 >years with one innovation -- a slightly
sharpened piece of stone that he >could use as a weapon or a hammer
(and which was just one step up from >the chimp's use of any handy
piece of stone). The point is that Homo >Sapiens not only produced
a far better stone tool than Homo N -- the >so-called 'axehead' --
but he kept on producing innovations from then
>onwards!
This is a pretty muddled account: the species with
one tool was Homo erectus, which seems to have managed for almost two
million years with only the "Acheulian hand axe", a tool shaped
rather like a flattened tear drop. The only older tools are
called "Oldowan choppers", and are basically stones with six or
eight flakes broken off one side to make a ragged edge. The
Acheulian tools show a slight improvement in quality of manufacture
over the period of their existence, but with the advent of the
Neandertal "Mousterian" tool culture in europe, and other lineages
elsewhere, over the last half million years, tool variety and quality
greatly increased. The Neandertals had a rich variety of stone and
bone implements, and no doubt had much more in wood, of which
only some "javelins" of uncertain ownership have been found.
They certainly hafted points on spears, and used awls to bore
into wood and bone. Which is not to say that the subsequent
Aurignacian toolkit of the european Hs was not substantially more
elaborate yet, but you slander the poor Neandertals, who never seem
to be able to get good
press.
-Pete Vincent Yes, I *was* rather traducing
Neantherthal man. If the wiped-out-by-disease hypothesis is correct, then Hn
could possibly be living today, perhaps even to be seen wearing a tie and
carrying a briefcase. But I was generalising (but not overmuch) in order to
make the point that Neanderthal and other previous Homo species had limited
creativity and were confined to restricted habitats. Creativity was
certainly going on for a million years or more before we came along. But
after we mutated then invention was explosive. The novelty-seeking parts of
our brain (the frontal lobes) were considerably larger than those of
Neanderthal (with his low, sloping forehead) and this, I suggest, is what
instituted consumer demand, drove trade between adjacent tribes and then
encouraged migration into all parts of the world, even into habitats which,
without trade, would have been totally inhospitable.
Keith
Hudson
Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England
|