Haha Ok, saw blackbootz message first. Here is my response to this portion of it: The idea that specialized tools, burying the dead, symbolic artifacts, and language evolved quite abruptly 50,000 years ago (or between 50-100kya) is simply outdated. We do need to explain why we see a relative explosion of activity in the Lower Paleolithic - but it is probably not connected to any fundamental rupture in our biological make up or our behavioural proclivity. To be honest, I'm partial to the idea that the explosion of activity is a sampling error - all humans lived in East Africa before 100kya... and very little archaeological work has been done for this time period in East Africa relative to other areas of Eurasia. I wouldn't be surprised if future research revealed this. It could also be connected to population size - our population could have spiked (perhaps due to environmental factors) which facilitated the increased cultural and technological complexity. Either way, I think the evidence is quite sound that humans had advanced language over 200kya (and likely earlier) and also that we were burying our dead (along with Neanderthals and Homo heidelbergensis and probably Homo erectus) for hundreds of thousands of years. EDIT: I did my undergraduate thesis on the origin of language. It was quite common for anthropologists to posit that language evolved suddenly 50,000 years ago back in the 1990s. However, as soon as paleoanthropologists and primatologists got involved in solving the problem of language, it quickly became evident that language was acquired hundreds of thousands of years ago - language it probably quite ancient. From my perspective I think the evidence leads to the conclusion that some form of communication that we call language emerged 2 million years ago and that all humans around 500,000 years ago had some form of advanced language. So if this author is position that all of a sudden we started using language 50,000 years ago - it is simply an outdated view. Also, I think we have also revealed within the last ten years that "behavioural modernity" is also quite ancient - most Homo erectus sites show remarkable technological and cultural complexity and variation. Even the very first Homo habilis sites show patterns of behaviour that were completely absent in any other species before the emergence of the genus Homo. EDIT 2: I have now had a chance to read further re: his ideas about ice and human clothing. He is making some pretty bold claims that are not at all substantiated with evidence. Take for example this paper published in 2011. The paper clearly states that clothing likely emerged with modern humans possibly as late as 170,000 years ago! So making a claim regarding clothing abrupt emergence post-Toba is not at all a fair statement to make.But now jump forward 50,000 years. East Africa looks much the same. So do the humans in it—but suddenly they are drawing and carving images, weaving ropes and baskets, shaping and wielding specialized tools, burying the dead in formal ceremonies, and perhaps worshipping supernatural beings. They are wearing clothes—lice-filled clothes, to be sure, but clothes nonetheless. Momentously, they are using language. And they are dramatically increasing their range. Homo sapiens is exploding across the planet.
What caused this remarkable change? By geologists’ standards, 50,000 years is an instant, a finger snap, a rounding error.
I'm wondering where the discrepancy between facts with the source the author cited and the paper you linked comes from. Mann didn't include a bibliography that I can see so going after his sources is a bit harder, but he's not making random claims; he does get his information from scientific studies, if slightly outdated ones.
Well the discrepancy comes from some of his claims. Correct me if I'm wrong but he is stating that there were fundamental shifts in human behaviour that emerged between 50,000-100,000 years ago. From the article he seems to indicate that this included the wearing of clothes as well as the full emergence of language. I'm just saying that, from the evidence we have today I don't think that assertion can hold up.
No, I understand that. He got his claims from a paper published in like '99, and your link is only a couple years old; so I'm inclined to trust yours. But I'm a little bit surprised the discrepancy is so great between two peer-reviewed papers 12 years apart. Either way, this is a great article as far as summarizing where we are and where we're going. Pity he made some mistakes.
There has been a lot of progress in evolutionary anthropology over the past 10 years... and I feel like there is much progress to be made still. We can now test hypotheses with genetics and we have just started to do extensive field research outside of Europe. Yes, sorry for nitpicking - academics can be horrible for that - but the details matter - and new evidence always changes the scientific narrative. I did think it was well written and there was a lot of important points and perspectives shared by Mann.I'm a little bit surprised the discrepancy is so great between two peer-reviewed papers 12 years apart.
Either way, this is a great article as far as summarizing where we are and where we're going. Pity he made some mistakes.
So you're points of contention with the author are mainly that some of his examples for behavioral modernity do not spontaneously arise at 50,000 years ago but that, in fact, some of the author's examples have been around for hundreds of thousands of years (the ceremony of burying the dead, clothes, language) and furthermore, behavioral modernity has been established in some observations of Homo erectus and Homo habilis. Question: * Assuming that the Toba event didn't wipe out a lot of humans and create a narrower range of genetic diversity to begin with that (for lack of a better term) "jump-started" our evolutionary adaptations, are the author's central findings still correct? Namely, we've demonstrated a propensity for behavioral plasticity that could, and would be the only way possible, of saving the biosphere? * You say that the author is making some pretty bold claims that are not at all substantiated with evidence but where is your evidence that language has been around for 2 million years? And what's the difference between a language and an "advanced" language? I'm reading a book now, The Power of Babel, by John McWhorter, that asserts that "uncivilized" or fringe societies (like those in the Amazon, for example) have languages that are just as complex as the English language, albeit with less of a vocabulary, so the idea of there being advanced and unadvanced languages is too simplistic. Also, McWhorter claims that language is about 160,000 years old, not 500,000. I also want to point you to this section, as you seem to think that the author is concluding that behavioral modernity was a result of Toba (when I think he's not concluding anything definitively).. For now, the answers are the subject of careful back-and-forth in refereed journals and heated argument in faculty lounges. All that is clear is that about the time of Toba, new, behaviorally modern people charged so fast into the tephra that human footprints appeared in Australia within as few as 10,000 years, perhaps within 4,000 or 5,000.Did Toba, as theorists like Richard Dawkins have argued, cause an evolutionary bottleneck that set off the creation of behaviorally modern people, perhaps by helping previously rare genes—Neanderthal DNA or an opportune mutation—spread through our species? Or did the volcanic blast simply clear away other human species that had previously blocked H. sapiens’ expansion? Or was the volcano irrelevant to the deeper story of human change?
Precisely. We know that the common ancestor of Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo hedelbergensis (~500,000 years ago) A) buried their dead, B) expressed themselves symbolically, and C) probably had advanced language (even if it wasn't as advanced as modern human language). The main results of this evidence is that behavioural modernity gradually emerged over hundreds of thousands of years. Your questions. I think that adapting to extreme environmental pressures is the only way real change occurs in nature. This is essentially what causes punctuated equilibrium. This is certainly the case with modern humans. So within the context of our modern system, we wouldn't be attempting to switch from fossil fuels if A) they weren't destroying planet and B) they weren't finite... but those two problems will cause a punctuated equilibrium-like change in our energy production (I think to solar). Well, I say that some type of proto-language has been around for 2 million years. I do touch on this in my Pathway to the Global Brain lecture at GBI. Work from Dunbar's team on language has really pushed the field into a new frontier. Here is a recent paper going over their hypothesis. And here is a good excerpt from The Social Brain by Robin Dunbar on the emergence of language: As for the evidence - it is derived from the A) relationship between neocortex size and group size within primate groups, B) the amount of time we spend talking to other humans (it's the same as other primates spend grooming), C) the symbolic communication medium that would have been required to stabilize ratcheting (increasingly complex) culture and technology. These lines of evidence converge on a time for some type of advanced language emerging between 1 million and 500,000 years ago - but again this is gradual - and when I say 2 million years ago - I mean that early Homo habilis would have been communicating with symbols - they would have been primitive but they would have been representing things symbolically. The difference is qualitative and quantitative and its a gradient... there is not necessarily a threshold where you can say "this is advanced" - and we have the problem of not actually being able to study extinct hominids. I think my overview of language and the difference between chimp and human communication expresses my opinion on the gradient between primitive and advanced symbolic communication. All humans have equally complex or "advanced" language. That is definitive evidence that modern language existed at least 200,000 years ago with the emergence of modern humans. Some anthropologists think that it emerged with modern humans (so this would be McWhorter's stance). I don't necessarily disagree with this - but it is definitely the case that all humans that existed 500,000 years ago had some type of language (although it wouldn't have been as complex. -- The final quote you cited seems like a fair statement to me. -- Sorry for the late reply - I wanted to answer thoroughly as I could.So you're points of contention with the author are mainly that some of his examples for behavioral modernity do not spontaneously arise at 50,000 years ago but that, in fact, some of the author's examples have been around for hundreds of thousands of years (the ceremony of burying the dead, clothes, language) and furthermore, behavioral modernity has been established in some observations of Homo erectus and Homo habilis.
Namely, [have we] demonstrated a propensity for behavioral plasticity that could, and would be the only way possible, of saving the biosphere?
where is your evidence that language has been around for 2 million years?
Language evolved to bridge this gap in bonding time requirement because it allows time to be used more efficiently.
1. Several individuals can be “groomed” at once.
2. Possible to time share with speech in a way that is not possible with grooming (talk/walk/feed)
3. Allows us to exchange information about events within our social network that happened during our absence.
-Suggests that language, at least in some form, would have had to have evolved by around 0.5 mya.
-We should probably not expect language to have arisen as a single phenotypic or genotypic event but rather as a series of stages.
-Language pathway: (i) conventional primate grooming (ii) increasing use of vocal chorusing to bond groups in the way that gelada and other living primates already do (iii) appearance of socially focused language designed to expand the range and quality of interactions needed to support larger groupings (iv) language as we now have it
what's the difference between a language and an "advanced" language?
I'm reading a book now, The Power of Babel, by John McWhorter, that asserts that "uncivilized" or fringe societies (like those in the Amazon, for example) have languages that are just as complex as the English language, albeit with less of a vocabulary, so the idea of there being advanced and unadvanced languages is too simplistic.
McWhorter claims that language is about 160,000 years old, not 500,000.
Woah, that took me on a wikipedia trip. Huh. Never heard of punctuated equilibrium, good to know. Thanks apesI think that adapting to extreme environmental pressures is the only way real change occurs in nature. This is essentially what causes punctuated equilibrium.