The Prehistory of the Mind

I'm in the middle of reading this book by Steven Mithen, and there is an interesting discussion of archaeological puzzles during what he calls "Act 3" of human evolution, dated between 1.8 million and 100,000 years ago, concerning the evidence for Early Human culture. He divides these into two groups:

Technical conservatism

(1) Why did Early Humans ignore bone, antler and ivory as raw materials?
(2) Why did Early Humans not make tools designed for specific purposes?
(3) Why did Early Humans not make multi-component tools?
(4) Why did Early Human stone tools show such limited degrees of variation across time and space?

Social intelligence

(5) Why do the settlements of Early Humans imply universally small groups?
(6) Why do distribution of artifacts on sites suggest limited social interaction?
(7) Why is there an absence of items of personal decoration?
(8) Why is there no evidence for ritualized burial among Early Humans?

Mithen provides his own hypotheses about these puzzles, but I wanted to ask if anyone has any suggestions, from the point of view of our research here on the forum, about why the record begs the questions above. My hunch about the first group of questions is that, based on various things the C's have said, the technological environment in the pre-diluvian world was so radically different that the kinds of tools that are notably lacking in the archaeological record may have been unnecessary in view of the alternate methods available for getting things done that are no longer available to us in our present environment. As for the second group of questions, specifically (7) and (8), I wondered if these aspects of human culture were "imported" during the Kantekkian immigration to Earth, and gradually diffused to other native cultures after this event. However, my current understanding is that the material culture correlated with this event errs on the side of being too recent (40,000 years), not too ancient.

Of crucial importance is the accuracy of the dating of the archaeological data -- I would think that there would have been an abrupt change in human culture at 309,000 years ago when the "adamic race" was introduced for the first time, differences in material culture previous to this being ascribed to the fact that all "Early Humans" were "preadamic", or Organic Portals at the juncture between 2D and 3D. If Mithen's 100,000-year landmark was actually a 300,000-year landmark, this could be the entire explanation. It's entirely possible that I have misunderstood one or more parts of this timeline, so I'm very open to more input on this.

Hi Shijing

Didn't the C's say that modern humans were introduced about 80,000 years ago? The population before this time would have been Neandertals, which would account for the lack of technological and social development.

Hi Viv --

Viv said:

Didn't the C's say that modern humans were introduced about 80,000 years ago? The population before this time would have been Neandertals, which would account for the lack of technological and social development.

Click to expand...

Actually, the C's only say that one specific modern human population was transferred to Earth from Kantek 80,000 years ago -- it is my understanding that other modern human populations existed on Earth previous to this, probably much further back in history, so I don't think that explains it (but thanks for your suggestion).

Shijing said:

Of crucial importance is the accuracy of the dating of the archaeological data -- I would think that there would have been an abrupt change in human culture at 309,000 years ago when the "adamic race" was introduced for the first time, differences in material culture previous to this being ascribed to the fact that all "Early Humans" were "preadamic", or Organic Portals at the juncture between 2D and 3D. If Mithen's 100,000-year landmark was actually a 300,000-year landmark, this could be the entire explanation. It's entirely possible that I have misunderstood one or more parts of this timeline, so I'm very open to more input on this.

Click to expand...

I think this accuracy of the dating is probably the biggest issue. A cataclysmic event that throws carbon dust into the atmosphere (volcano, comet, etc) may make artifacts appear much older than the actually are. On the other hand, an influx of cosmic rays due to a weakening in the earth or sun's magnetic field would make artifacts from that time much younger than they actually were. Based on what we know about cosmic catastrophes, it's hard to say what happened and when, but that there could be a wide range in variability in any time period.

I have not read the book, but from the questions that Mithen describes I would guess that he could be describing "preadamic" humans, but this is nothing more than a hunch.

RyanX said:

I have not read the book, but from the questions that Mithen describes I would guess that he could be describing "preadamic" humans, but this is nothing more than a hunch.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's my first guess too. My assumption has always been that the advent of "modern humans" coincided with the first mass incarnation of souls 309,000 years ago. I don't know if that is actually accurate, but I think it makes sense. You are right that the dating inaccuracy would be the most direct explanation -- since Mithen's cut-off date is 100,000 years ago, that makes the discrepancy about 200,000 years, which is pretty significant. It could also reflect a paucity of data in the current extant archaeological record as well.

I think the dating issue is the biggest along with the issue that prior "technology" was so different we can't even imagine it. (Well, not us here, but science in general and most people.)

I'm presently reading "The Neanderthal Legacy" by Paul Mellars as an antidote to reading Colin Wilson's awful "Atlantis and the Kingdom of the Neanderthals" and he has made a number of revealing remarks about the various dating methods and their inaccuracies including TL and Spin Resonance, etc.

Then, there is the problem he discusses about correlating layers in slices of ice cores or ocean cores to surface layers, mentioning a time or three about obvious evidence of layers having been destroyed or removed by various factors including powerful winds.

The bottom line seems to be that, when you consider cataclysmic actions that are either global or local, it sure puts us in the dark time-wise, moreso when considering things that are really far back in time. There are few places on the planet where layering is preserved so we can't even rely on that most of the time. And when there is such a place, as inside a cave where there has been long use of the structure, very often, its layers do not correspond entirely to other core analyses or layers in other locations, even if they are fairly close! It sure is a muddle.

Laura said:

I'm presently reading "The Neanderthal Legacy" by Paul Mellars as an antidote to reading Colin Wilson's awful "Atlantis and the Kingdom of the Neanderthals"...

Click to expand...

Oh no! I picked up Colin Wilson's book awhile back (haven't read it yet) because I was hoping it would actually say something useful about Neanderthals that went beyond the mainstream. I'm sorry to hear that it isn't that great.

I just finished Mithen's book this evening, and he has an interesting epilogue on the origins of agriculture. I thought I'd quote a bit of it here:

Around 10,000 years ago, people changed from being hunter-gatherers to farmers in many different regions of the world. This transformation took place quite independently in parts of Southwest Asia, Equatorial Africa, the Southwest Asian mainland, Central America and in lowland and highland South America. The onset of farming is frequently invoked as the turning point of prehistory. Without agriculture we would not have had towns, cities and state society. It is these that have so fundamentally changed the contexts in which the minds of individuals develop today from those of our hunter-gatherer ancestors.

[...]

So why did people take up farming? An element of compulsion must have been involved. Despite what we might intuitively imagine, farming did not automatically liberate our Stone Age ancestors from a hand-to-mouth, catch-as-catch-can existence. Indeed quite the opposite. Living by agriculture comes a very poor second when compared with living by hunting and gathering. the need to look after a field of crops ties down some members of a community to a particular spot, creating problems of sanitation, social tensions and the depletion of resources such as firewood. Hunter-gatherers easily solve these problems by being mobile. As soon as their waste accumulates, or firewood is depleted, they move on to another campsite. If individuals or families have disagreements, they can move away to different camps. But as soon as crops need regular weeding, and labour has been invested in building storage facilities or irrigation canals which need maintaining, the option to move on is lost. It is no coincidence that the earliest agricultural communities of the Near East show substantially poorer states of health than their hunter-gatherer forebears, as we know from studies of their bones and teeth.

Click to expand...

Mithen provides his own interpretation of this evidence, but then Mithen almost certainly doesn't have any knowledge of Lizards, who were likely available at the right time at different points on the globe to promote domestication of various crops simultaneously -- wheat in the Near East, maize in the Americas, soy in East Asia, and so on. I ran across this on Wikipedia this evening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy_bean) and thought it apropos:

According to the ancient Chinese, in 2853 BC the legendary Emperor Shennong of China proclaimed that five plants were sacred: soybeans, rice, wheat, barley, and millet.

Click to expand...

This all brings to mind a part of the most recent C's session:

Session Date: March 28th 2010 said:

Q: (L) So you're saying that health issues, destroying people's health - like even the introduction of wheat and other things that are not conducive to good health - are ways of preventing awareness and spiritual growth?

A: Yes. A long and carefully thought out plan of 4D STS.

Click to expand...

Hi all!

After a lifelong preoccupation with related topics, I've come to understand that evolution of the brain in these matters consists of very distinct fazes and stages of development based on only a few different decisions which follow certain patterns coerced via environmental constraints. This almost automatically implies a repetitiveness of some stages, spread over different times and different places. To reinvent the wheel several times independently, so to speak. This so called 'independence' of developments then seems rather trivial in reference to the constraints mentioned. Some problems have only a few similar solutions to them, apparently.

A possible sequence of events gradually pertaining to a more permanent settling of greater masses, may consist of the following stages (in no definite order as of yet):


* taming of the fire and tending to its permanent sustenance

* cooking and pottery technologies with fire, including bricks for building storage's

* conservatory technologies for storage long term

* taming and breeding animals in stead of only hunting

* taming and breeding plants and fruits in stead of only gathering

* fire related technologies leading to forging of metals and then new weaponry

* invention and application of the wheel (also pottery wheel, medicine wheel and others (cosmic wheels, mandala))

* related development of language in practical terms, including ritual languages and songs - all sorts of new concepts, practice based really

* institution of slavery as a consequence of equestrian developments - raiders first and conquerors next


To my mind, the slavery development is the most crucial 'man made quasi environmental constraint' in all history. It presupposes the 'advent' of psychopathy and psychopathic rulers and the use of certain forms of ritual religion as a means of mass control in larger settlements. Slavery needs an ideology to justify its permanence and the subsequent codification thereof, not just physical defeat in wars and conquests to establish it. That seems to me the crucial difference to just killing them all and as such it may be an all important step in human evolution: establishing permanent dominance of the few over the many. Empire building comes next...

FWIW.