Mike is a member (and more recently, mod) of my forum, Ishtar’s Gate, which will be opening again next week and which will be going into depth into all the issues covered in his book, and more. Let me know if you’d like to join.

Best wishes,

Ishtar

* And, I think, I also object to.

I think that cognition and symbolic thought are indelibly linked in our minds to ‘evolution of intelligence’ and the point of my article, Rise and Fall of the Planet of the Apes (http://ishtarsgate.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/rise-and-fall-of-the-planet-of-the-apes/) was to show that this is just a value judgement made by HS (us) and that cognition can take many forms. However, until we understand more about the shamanic mindset and simulacra, we will be oblivious to these other ways of thinking and archaeologists like Mithen will not be able to fully understand the meaning behind what they’re digging up.

I’m sure Mithen’s work has a lot to offer, but if he is using Occam’s Razor, which he appears to be from your explanation ~ well, it can be a pretty blunt instrument at times.

I note your views about cognition evolving in hominims ~ but if intelligence is to be measured by how successfully we manage our place our planet and are able to hand on that stewardship with a clean conscience to future generations ~ I think the Neanderthals and the earlier HS of the Upper Palaeolithic have us beaten on that hands down.

Again, it is all about making value judgements through a glass darkly. For instance, corvids display just as much intelligence as primates. I thought you might be interested to see this post about it from Ishtar’s Gate, based on scientists’ reports. “Corvids as intelligent as primates” ~ http://www.ishtarsgate.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=266&p=2741&hilit=Crows#p2741

To conclude, there does seem to be this desire within us (so inate that we barely recognise it’s existence) to conduct scientific inquiry through the lens of assuming our own superiority of all forms of life, but especially the hairier varieties. We do need to understand that this is just a point of view driven by millennia of conditioning to think that way, and not an objectively reached scientific conclusion.

Thanks for listening.

Good question. My copy of ‘Prehistory’ is in my office in Bristol, but from memory: Mithen is a Professor of Archaeology at the University of Reading. Prehistory is a highly regarded book. A little old now (1996). I think he works backwards. Back then the primary difference between Neanderthals and anatomically modern, but archaic, humans was thought to be the use of symbolic thought. They deduced this from the apparent absence of paintings and the scarcity of artefacts, except at later sites. Symbolic thought requires a flow of information between the different ‘modules’ of thought. These modules are functional constructs. They do not map to specific locations of the cortex. Thus, the Neanderthals were thought to have non-overlapping modules. Thus, they would find multitasking difficult. I think there is also evidence from the assemblage of materials at the sites, too. Mithen has written more extensively about Neanderthals, subsequently to Prehistory.

Since then, of course, we have lots of examples of apparent symbolic thought – eg the use of ochre and shells.

I think cognition certainly evolves, but we need to be careful to presume that other hominins, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and other monkeys (as well as whales, etc) also show cognition to various degrees. Indeed, to me the most exciting thing about the human genome project is that it shows our connectedness to other animal groups. Darwin was a wonderful writer. I have just got back from lecturing in Santiago and read Darwin’s ‘voyage of the Beagle’ whilst I was in Chile. I was amazed at how accurate and wonderful his journals are. The Descent of Man is a remarkable book, too. I have written about some of that, here.

Have a good weekend

Neil

What do you think of all of the religious imagery? Do you like them at all? Why does he use them?

Interesting post.