paleoanthropologists theorise that homo sapiens survived over other hominid species because the part of the brain responsible for language and communication was larger. this allowed homo sapiens to spread ideas and information, which ultimately gave it the edge over other hominids, and allowed it to survive while the others went extinct.
> better at spreading ideas
> humans literally survived and exist now because of memes
how does this make you feel?
>homo sapiens turn up and start spreading memes about Neanderthals being assburger losers
>Neanderthal gfs no longer want to fuck you because they see you as a beta, would rather ride that alpha sapiens dick
>die a virgin
It's likelier than you think.
>This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, ANTHROPOLOGY, ancient languages, etc.
go be salty elsewhere creationists.
Did modern humans not produce art, different styles of tools (including harpoons and fishhooks), more effective use of flint in terms of blade length extracted from the same amount of stone. When compared to Homo erectus which used the same general tool style for over a million years with minimal improvement, the rate of 'memes' 'cultural artefacts' has certainly increased, and a perfectly valid speculation is that the language and communication to be able to transmit these ideas was an important factor in the evolution of modern humans.
Don't get so mad about a topic you don't know specifics about.
It is definitionally the documentary records of the past.
You've got at least 4 steps in a chain of unfounded speculation there.
And there are no sources provided throughout this thread.
If this is the way that anthropology works in general then I'd like to extend my previous statements against you and your ilk to anyone who acts like you.
> having to provide sources for literally everything you say and not being able to have an interesting discussion because autists like you keep asking for sources
> on a south sudanian goat herding imageborad
>So are you denying all forms of archaeological evidence?
I'm denying that it is history. It is some other discipline's discussion of the past from physical remains. Oh wait, that's archaeology.
>And I was mostly comparing the post 'great leap forward' technologies, with the uniformity of homo erectus tool culture.
And the link from here to memes riding language in the larger brains of sapiens is 4 steps.
Chicago or DOIs are fine.
So why don't you shitpost in every thread related to a culture without writing?
Archaeology, linguistics and anthropology are all related to this thread and are all explicitly mentioned as topics for this board.
So the archaeological record shows a relatively fast diversification of tools and culture (palaeolithic art), and your suggesting that it's /x/ worthy to discuss possible explanations for this?
Linguistics people rarely shit post this level of speculation. The don't go beyond solids like PIE, and when they do they self-discipline.
Anthrothreads are shit, pure shit.
Archaeological threads are really minor.
>So the archaeological record shows a relatively fast diversification of tools and culture (palaeolithic art), and your suggesting that it's /x/ worthy to discuss possible explanations for this?
It is /x/ grade to jump 4 steps to memes.
Bolhuis JJ, Tattersall I, Chomsky N, Berwick RC (2014) How Could Language Have Evolved? PLoS Biol 12(8): e1001934. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001934
>The evolution of the faculty of language largely remains an enigma. In this essay, we ask why. Language's evolutionary analysis is complicated because it has no equivalent in any nonhuman species. There is also no consensus regarding the essential nature of the language “phenotype.” According to the “Strong Minimalist Thesis,” the key distinguishing feature of language (and what evolutionary theory must explain) is hierarchical syntactic structure. The faculty of language is likely to have emerged quite recently in evolutionary terms, some 70,000–100,000 years ago, and does not seem to have undergone modification since then, though individual languages do of course change over time, operating within this basic framework.
The evolution of language
Martin A. Nowak* and David C. Krakauer
PNAS July 6, 1999 vol. 96 no. 14
And there's another paper, more linguistics related.
>This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages, etc.
Posting sources isnt a rule
>paleoanthropologists theorise that homo sapiens survived over other hominid species because the part of the brain responsible for language and communication was larger.
This claim is not found in Bolhuis and others 2014.
The central claim of the paper is the abstract merge set function being genetic.
I'm sorry, I just reread the sticky. Anthropologists aren't required to provide supporting information or sources.
Given what I've heard about your field and its inherent orientalism, I'm sure that mewtwo thought of you when writing the sticky.
Why don't you make a more reasonable claim, say, that merge set function is genetic in nature and must have come to exhibit itself between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago based on the creation of symbolic objects? (Bolhuis)
Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans
R. I. M. Dunbar
Behavioral and Brain Sciences / Volume 16 / Issue 04 / December 1993, pp 681- 694
Asymmetry of Chimpanzee Planum Temporale: Humanlike Pattern of Wernicke's Brain Language Area Homolog
Patrick J. Gannon et al.
Science 09 Jan 1998:
Vol. 279, Issue 5348, pp. 220-222
>the rate of 'memes' 'cultural artefacts' has certainly increased
I wonder why other animals haven't progressed even though they can transmit information just like we can. A wild pack of animals can be alerted by a single noise, dogs ask for food from humans, gorillas like the one that knew sign language can express sadness, what distinctly separates human from these animals? It can't just be brain size, look at a whale, they haven't built land submarines to traverse the earth. But if you think about why, a lot of it has to do with the fact that their whale arms can't pick up a rock and throw it at a squirrel, practical apdatation in the form of us coming from monkeys who developed fingers to grasp branches, as well as being in a position to develop due to abundance of available resources. Look at Europe versus Africa's development, hardship from lack of resources, poor weather, all made it important to build houses, as opposed to Africans I'm a tropical environment where food is on every square inch. Perhaps the combination of practical means to build because of digits and limbs to carry us coupled with the necessity to survive in harsher climates lead to the first cavemen, and later to the development of tools, one of those tools being language, evolving from grunts to vowels, and increasing in complexity in certain cultures, explain why there are different languages in different regions, like the Eskimos who supposedly had more names for snow.
Again, look at Europe versus Africa, development can have rapidly different speeds, and we only years ago invented the computer, there were people alive who remembered life without cars just twenty years ago. We are on the cutting edge of this development if our skills, so it stands to reason that some other animal could have easily become the one with the divine spark.
Other way around I am afraid
No Female Neander DNA in modern humans, but there is Male Neander DNA in modern humans
Female Neanders were to strong/quick for male Homo Sapiens to catch and rape
Those African boys were manlets
Female Homo Sapiens were all to eager to get it on with the strong Alpha Neander males
Neander women were based, no niggers wanted
The African Female Hominids all wanted that big, red haired, green eyed, milk white skinned alpha Neander dick
Makes me feel like why isnt this relativelycommon knowledge? Especially on a board about history.
people and cultures need to interact and share ideas otherwise they just stagnate intelectually because its hard to get new ideas when youve only seen something done one way your entire life.
Thats why cultures that began to trade, or war on a large scale often had huge advantages in innovation