Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 91 of 268 (424691)
09-28-2007 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Jon
09-28-2007 4:07 AM


Speech of the disabled
Jon writes:
With a lexicon of 100 words, and nothing else, a creature can only express 100 different concepts/ideas/etc. Would you say a human could speak if he could only express 100 different ideas?
Where I work many of the clients have varying abilities to speak. I can think of many that have a vocabulary of less than ten words. If they say "no" and don't want whatever I am offering - what do I call this? With a vocabulary of even less than an African Grey and less able to convey any complexities of speech, what should it be defined as if not speech?
These people are not two year olds who will "get better", but I have never questioned that what they do is speech.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Jon, posted 09-28-2007 4:07 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Jon, posted 09-28-2007 6:18 AM Vacate has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 92 of 268 (424695)
09-28-2007 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jon
09-28-2007 5:27 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Jon responds to me:
quote:
Do you have any idea what you're talking about, and did you bother reading anything I wrote?
Yes. I am capable of language and can understand writing.
Shall I turn the question back to you?
quote:
How do you combine them if you have a lexicon and 'nothing else'?
Who said there was "nothing else"? That's what you're trying to claim. We have evidence that there is something else because Alex (and Koko and all those other animals we've been studying) have been doing exactly what we would call "speech" if those actions were being carried out by humans.
So if it's speech when a human does it, why is it something else when a non-human does it?
quote:
My apologies, but if that is the case, then you are an idiot.
Ah, ah, ah...such langauge will get you banned.
[Note to admins: I'm a big boy. I can handle this.]
I see: Disagreeing with you is indicative of idiocy. Despite the fact that we have researchers who have literally spent their lives on this, you know more than they do.
I guess they're all a bunch of idiots, then.
Here, help us out. I'll ask you the same question we've been asking IamJoseph:
What is your definition of "speech"?
So far, you've made a couple negative claims ("If you can't do X, then you can't do "speech") that the evidence shows Alex shows positive evidence of. Ergo, Alex must be capable of "speech."
quote:
Where did I specify that a particular grammar was required?
Did you or did you not harp on the fact that Alex can't respond to the plural inflection? You then indicated that this means Alex doesn't understand the grammar.
And yet, Alex clearly understands the concept of number because he will respond to number. The fact that he doesn't have the capacity to deal with inflections doesn't mean he has no sense of grammar. Again, there are languages that don't use inflections to indicate plurality. They use an auxilliary term.
And yet, children learning that language don't immediately start using that auxilliary term when referring to plurality. They haven't gotten that far. They use the base term for everything. By your logic, because they don't use the indicator of plurality, this means they don't have any grammar and thus are incapable of speech.
So what is it they're doing? "Mimicry"?
quote:
He responded to a simple stimulus, much like a dog when you say 'fetch ball'.
He did much more than that. If you tell the dog, "Fetch second nubbly ball," when presented with a field that contains multiple balls, some of which are nubbly and some of which are not, he's not going to be able to do it when you start mixing up the field.
Alex, on the other hand, can. If you present him a field of round and square blocks, some big, some small, some blue, some green, some red, and ask him how many big, green cubes there are, he can tell you even if you mix up the field. If it were a simple stimulus-response, then the response to "How many big, green cube?" would always be the same.
Instead, his answer varies depending upon what is actually presented in front of him.
quote:
If I gave you the word: 'kloomp', and told you it was a noun, you could tell me its plural, because you understand the grammar.
Not if I haven't made it to plurality yet. Surely you're not saying that grammar depends upon the existence of plurality, are you? You do know that there are some langauges that don't have a plural, yes? Are those who use such language not "speaking"?
You are harping on the details of the grammar rather than grasping the concept of what a grammar does. Not all languages have the same grammar. In Chinese, which is a highly analytic language, word order is extremely important in determining meaning. Latin, on the other hand, is a highly synthetic langauge and word order isn't nearly as important. So long as each word is inflected correctly, you can string them together pretty much any way you want.
English is in the middle. In English, if you are describing a balloon with regard to its color and size, you say, "The big, red balloon." It is not technically incorrect to say, "The red, big balloon," since your meaning hasn't changed by reversing the adjectival order, but there's something about that phrasing that is just off and you hardly ever hear anybody putting the color adjective before the size adjective in English unless they're trying to make a point.
So seeing as how we all agree there are languages that have different grammars, why are you harping on the fact that Alex hasn't grasped plurality? Why can't we have a grammar that doesn't indicate plurality? Why does that single failure mean he is incapable of "speech"?
What do you mean by "speech"?
quote:
Though I disagree with him here, it'd be better to simply argue within his definitions rather than trying to argue him on semantics.
Do you truly not see the point? Since he is refusing to define his terms, insisting upon the distinction between "speech" and "language" is an attempt to get him to define what he means by "speech."
He is so adamant on refusing to define what he is talking about that I seriously wonder if he thinks sign isn't an actual langauge.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jon, posted 09-28-2007 5:27 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Jon, posted 09-28-2007 7:06 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 268 (424697)
09-28-2007 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Vacate
09-28-2007 5:42 AM


Re: Speech of the disabled
If they say "no" and don't want whatever I am offering - what do I call this?
Response to a stimulus.
I can think of many that have a vocabulary of less than ten words.
Do they also have grammar?
These people are not two year olds who will "get better", but I have never questioned that what they do is speech.
What do you define as 'speech'?
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Vacate, posted 09-28-2007 5:42 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Rrhain, posted 09-28-2007 6:26 AM Jon has replied
 Message 97 by Vacate, posted 09-28-2007 7:21 AM Jon has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 94 of 268 (424698)
09-28-2007 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Jon
09-28-2007 6:18 AM


Re: Speech of the disabled
Jon responds to Vacate:
quote:
quote:
I can think of many that have a vocabulary of less than ten words.
Do they also have grammar?
And if the answer is yes, what then?
What is the magic number of words needed in order for it to be called "speech"?
quote:
What do you define as 'speech'?
Nice try, but that's our question to you. Since what Alex is doing is identical to what we define in humans as "speech," you're going to have to define why it isn't.
While you're at it, please explain why the linguists have it wrong when they describe what Alex was doing as "speech." Everyone agrees it isn't very sophisticated. But surely sophistication isn't the defining characteristic, is it?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Jon, posted 09-28-2007 6:18 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Jon, posted 09-28-2007 7:21 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 268 (424702)
09-28-2007 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Rrhain
09-28-2007 6:10 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
(and Koko and all those other animals we've been studying)
We are talking about the damn bird. The capacity for language in other creatures does not indicate the bird's capacity.
Who said there was "nothing else"?
I did, when I gave the hypothetical scenario:
quote:
With a lexicon of 100 words, and nothing else, a creature can only express 100 different concepts/ideas/etc. Would you say a human could speak if he could only express 100 different ideas?
To which you replied: 'Yes...'
Whether there is 'nothing else' or 'something else' present in that bird is irrelevant at this point, because you have claimed that even if there is just a random storage of words and their meaning you think it indicative of language, which prompted this:
quote:
My apologies, but if that is the case, then you are an idiot.
Which I stand by fully.
If you think someone who's memorised Webster's front to back and nothing else”grammar, inflections, syntax, etc.”can be said to possess 'language', then you rightly are an idiot.
If you tell the dog, "Fetch second nubbly ball," when presented with a field that contains multiple balls, some of which are nubbly and some of which are not, he's not going to be able to do it when you start mixing up the field.
Sure, because people who play fetch with their dogs always make sure to throw the items in the exact place, each time...
That parrot possesses no greater capacity for language than the dog; his only 'advantage'”if we dare call it that”is that he has the physical features required to actually say the words.
So far, you've made a couple negative claims ("If you can't do X, then you can't do "speech") that the evidence shows Alex shows positive evidence of.
You have yet to show his positive evidence of understanding grammar. That the trainer in the video does not inflect 'block' should be evidence that she is just trying to fool people, because she knows in reality that her bird doesn't know grammar, and so doesn't possess language.
And yet, Alex clearly understands the concept of number because he will respond to number. The fact that he doesn't have the capacity to deal with inflections doesn't mean he has no sense of grammar. Again, there are languages that don't use inflections to indicate plurality. They use an auxilliary term.
Sure... the auxiliary term is part of the grammar, and had the bird been trained in another language, the trainer would have dropped the auxiliary because if she included it, she knows that the bird will get confused and just ask for his water. Why? Because the bird doesn't have grammar.
And yet, children learning that language don't immediately start using that auxilliary term when referring to plurality.
Again, you can communicate with the child using proper grammar, which shows that:
quote:
The child clearly understands the grammar, even if he/she is not able to repeat it properly at that age.
Not all languages have the same grammar.
Of course not; but they all have a grammar of some kind, else they are not languages.
why are you harping on the fact that Alex hasn't grasped plurality?
Because, plurality is part of the grammar of English, the language the trainers are using to communicate with the bird. And, the bird has not been taught in any other language using any other grammar, as far as we know. As it is, there's no indication that the bird understands grammar, and so concluding that 'he can, but it's not like our grammar' is wishful thinking in the least, and at most”here's that word again (actually, a morphology of it)”plain and simple idiocy. If the bird is able to understand grammar, then why was it not taught to him? Simple: he isn't able to understand grammar. Why? Because he's a bird.
Besides, most people are not taught their grammar; they acquire it simply through being with other people who speak a language using a particular grammar. That the bird has not been taught grammar, nor has acquired it through being in the presence of his trainers is rather conclusive evidence that he lacks the capacity to understand grammar. Lacking the capacity to understand grammar means that he lacks the capacity for language, no matter how complex his sound repetitions are, no matter how complex the stimuli are to which he is responding”he has no language.
Do you truly not see the point? Since he is refusing to define his terms, insisting upon the distinction between "speech" and "language" is an attempt to get him to define what he means by "speech."
Irrelevant. You yourself have used them as synonyms in this very post. For the purpose of this argument, 'speech' and 'language' are the same thing. Making sounds is not language(/speech), even if they sound like words.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Rrhain, posted 09-28-2007 6:10 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2007 5:02 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 268 (424703)
09-28-2007 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Rrhain
09-28-2007 6:26 AM


Re: Speech of the disabled
You already used 'speech' and 'language' synonymously, so I am going to assume that you are doing so here as well... in which case:
What is the magic number of words needed in order for it to be called "[language]"?
It's not about the number of words. Please read what I am writing. It is about having words, and having a grammar governing the use of those words. You need (lexicon + grammar = language). You're shifting off-topic, though. The bird has enough words to qualify, so it's irrelevant to squabble over how many words are needed”we can both agree that the bird qualifies in the size of his lexicon. Where the bird loses the battle, though, is in not having a grammar. (lexicon + [nothing else] != language). I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.
While you're at it, please explain why the linguists have it wrong when they describe what Alex was doing as "[language]."
Shit, man... what passes as a 'linguist' these days? No one I'd consider to be a linguist of any standing would make a crack-pot judgement like that.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Rrhain, posted 09-28-2007 6:26 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 97 of 268 (424704)
09-28-2007 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Jon
09-28-2007 6:18 AM


Re: Speech of the disabled
quote:
If they say "no" and don't want whatever I am offering - what do I call this?
Jon writes:
Response to a stimulus.
Its not the same as if I make a face and they laugh. Is it also 'response to a stimulus' if they say "pie" and refuse to eat any other desert?
Do they also have grammar?
The one in question certainly doesn't - He only says "pie".
What do you define as 'speech'?
I am not really sure. This definition works for me - The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words only I would also add sign language.
I would suggest that what differs from mimicing is the ability to construct. Saying "Pretty bird" is simply mimicing, counting blocks and constructing a grouping of words to express this would be speech.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Jon, posted 09-28-2007 6:18 AM Jon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 98 of 268 (424707)
09-28-2007 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Jon
09-28-2007 2:19 AM


When the tester gives him some water, he doesn't drink it. Clearly he didn't want water, and clearly he had no idea what the meaning was ...
How do you draw this conclusion? Clearly Alex knew that asking for water would give him a distraction from the testing. Clearly the tester knew this was a tactic he often used.
I do not see this as anything significant.
Your choice mate. You can ask 1 year old children these questions and not get the answers that Alex gives. Is that significant?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Jon, posted 09-28-2007 2:19 AM Jon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 99 of 268 (424710)
09-28-2007 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Jon
09-28-2007 4:07 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Word repetition is not the only aspect of language; nor is a simple lexicon. With a lexicon of 100 words, and nothing else, a creature can only express 100 different concepts/ideas/etc. Would you say a human could speak if he could only express 100 different ideas? No.
But you are confusing the use of single words with only being able to comprehend single words\ideas.
Clearly the answer to "what color bigger" and "what shape bigger" getting the proper answers is not just word repetition but comprehension of the question and what the proper answer is. There are more than single ideas in these questions and the answers are not just {A} or {B} possibilities.
Because grammar is a key component of language, then it follows that the bird has no understanding or grasp on language. The child clearly understands the grammar, even if he/she is not able to repeat it properly at that age.
And Alex clearly understands the grammar of the questions in order to give the right answers. If you claim this applies to the human child and not to Alex then you are using special the pleading logical fallacy.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Jon, posted 09-28-2007 4:07 AM Jon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 268 (424714)
09-28-2007 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jon
09-28-2007 5:27 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
He responded to a simple stimulus, much like a dog when you say 'fetch ball'. Again, the fact that she didn't say 'blocks' shows the bird's inability to understand grammar. The bird does not see 'blocks' as a mere morphology of 'block', and so deduce they are relevant to the same thing.
The tray has green blocks, blue blocks, green cars and blue cars on it. This was the first time this type question was asked of Alex, and he answered the question "how many green block" correctly.
What part of understanding the grammar, the context, the meaning of the question do you not understand?
You said with "only 100 words" that "only 100 ideas" could be understood. Obviously the correct answer to this question is not such a simple idea as a single word.
Where did I specify that a particular grammar was required?
You said any grammar. Don't equivocate now.
I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that IaJ was using them as being synonymous. Though I disagree with him here, it'd be better to simply argue within his definitions rather than trying to argue him on semantics.
What definitions? The ones where he says human speech is speech by humans?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jon, posted 09-28-2007 5:27 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jon, posted 09-28-2007 2:13 PM RAZD has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 101 of 268 (424770)
09-28-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by AdminNosy
09-25-2007 11:05 PM


Re: Time to Rest IAmJoesph
quote:
IAJ writes:
Maybe because this notion simply does not exist!
You appear to be actually agreeing with those you are arguing with here.
What is actually going on is you don't read what is posted in reply to you. You whip off junk without thinking and you never support your assertions.
I don't think so.
quote:
Reliability of Carbon Dating
Bristlecone Pine Trees
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...cardat.html#c2
From the dating of ancient bristlecone pine trees from the western U.S., a correction curve for the carbon dating over the range back to 5000 BC has been developed. Trees dated at 4000 BC show the maximum deviation of between 600 and 700 years too young by carbon dating.
Glacier Measurements
Prior to carbon dating methods, the age of sediments deposited by the last ice age was surmised to be about 25000 years. "Radiocarbon dates of a layer of peat beneath the glacial sediments provided an age of only 11,400 years."
These examples are from The Earth Through Time, 2nd Ed. by Harold L. Levin
Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix. Fossil fuels have no carbon-14 content, and the burning of those fuels over the past 100 years has diluted the carbon-14 content. On the other hand, atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s increased the carbon-14 content of the atmosphere. Krane suggests that this might have doubled the concentration compared to the carbon-14 from cosmic ray production.
Also, "Broca's Area" has not relevence to speech datings. What is actually going on is you don't read what is posted in reply to you. You whip off junk without thinking and you never support your assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by AdminNosy, posted 09-25-2007 11:05 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 102 of 268 (424771)
09-28-2007 1:55 PM


All under 6000:
quote:
Civilization - Wikipedia
9 Development of early civilizations
9.1 African and Eurasian civilizations of the "Old World"
9.1.1 Sumer 3500-2334 BC
9.1.2 Indus Valley and the Indian subcontinent 3200-1700 BC
9.1.3 Ancient Egypt 3200-343 BC
9.1.4 Elamite (Iran) (2700-539 BC)
9.1.5 Canaan (2350 BC - 100 AD)
9.1.6 China 2200 BC-present
9.1.7 Greece 2000 BC-present
9.1.8 Vedic civilization 1700 BC - present
9.1.9 Korea c. 900 BC[dubious - discuss] - present
9.1.10 Etruscans and Ancient Rome 900BC-500AD
9.1.11 Persia (Iran)(550 B.C -- 650 A.D)
9.2 American Civilizations of the "New World"
9.2.1 Norte Chico 3000-1600 BC
9.2.2 Olmec (New World) 1200-450 BC
10 Alleged prehistoric civilizations
11 Subsequent Developments of Civilizations
12 Further reading
13 References
Of coz, the above, and all that sort of descriptions, are not evidences of speech, but that's there is: theories and specs about anatomy. Civilizations which have no back-up of datings or follow-up continuation. Speech is the most important factor in established humanity's origins - as opposed skeletal finds. Proof of speech is what speech derives - names, dialogues depicting an evidential, historical factor which represents established communites of civilization, as well as specificality recallted of names, kings, wars, events - in an elevating thread of grads. It does not exist.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Modulous, posted 09-28-2007 2:23 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 103 of 268 (424775)
09-28-2007 2:10 PM


ENLIGHTENMENT COMES FROM CORRECT 'DEVIL'S ADVOCATE' CHECKS.
To graduate from the current brick wall, the next step is to assume speech is a unique human attribute, a difference in kind than degree, not a result of the given thread of evolution, not prevalent for 100s of 1000s of years, and thus not part of the communication modes of all other life forms: what consequences can be derived from it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Modulous, posted 09-28-2007 2:26 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 268 (424777)
09-28-2007 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
09-28-2007 8:07 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Show me that he has understood the grammar, and I will believe you. So, far, you've all failed to show that the bird understands grammar. Showing that he 'knows what it means' is a far different thing. As far as we know (and this is more likely), he's merely passing the items through two mental filters... one for 'green', then re-running the filter for 'block'. That is nothing more than most dogs can do.
Clearly Alex knew that asking for water would give him a distraction from the testing.
Is that what you'd say of a dog who rolls over when given the command to 'sit'?
And Alex clearly understands the grammar of the questions in order to give the right answers.
One of the base components of the English grammar is plural inflection. He was not shown to understand plural inflection. He was also not shown to understand the significance of word order, because they failed to test him with nonsensical word orders. They have, therefore, failed to give any evidence that he comprehends grammar.
Will you please show me how what the bird is doing is any different than what a dog can do? Will you present evidence of the presence of an understanding of grammar in this bird?
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2007 8:07 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 09-28-2007 2:34 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2007 10:49 PM Jon has replied
 Message 113 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 12:37 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 133 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2007 5:10 AM Jon has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 105 of 268 (424779)
09-28-2007 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by IamJoseph
09-28-2007 1:55 PM


All under 6000:
Whoops - you didn't read the article did you?
quote:
The earliest known settlement in Jericho (9th millennium BC) was a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A culture that eventually gave way to more developed settlements later, which included in one early settlement (8th millennium BC) mud-brick houses surrounded by a stone wall, having a stone tower built into the wall. In this time there is evidence of domesticated emmer wheat, barley and pulses and hunting of wild animals. However, there are no indications of attempts to form communities (early civilizations) with surrounding peoples. Nevertheless, by the 6th millennium BC we find what appears to be an ancient shrine and cult, which would likely indicate intercommunal religious practices in this era. Findings include a collective burial (with not all the skeletons completely articulated, jaws removed, faces covered with plaster, cowries used for eyes).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by IamJoseph, posted 09-28-2007 1:55 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024