(September 21, 2021 at 5:10 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You've been given a few in the course of the thread. Adaptations to our jaws, initially, in response to our rapidly changing diet... combined with the breathing control required for gathering food on the coast, left us in possession of the mechanical requirements for human speech. We know we were communicating beforehand by the consistency of artifacts. If we didn't start talking pretty much immediately after those adaptations found their way into a dominant population, it would only have been for lack of trying. This was long after coop hunting, somewhere between anatomic and full modernity. If geneticists can be relied on, ballpark, 100k years ago.I like that theory, I have heard it before. It has the same possibility as the hunting hypothesis. Thanks for posting science.
We just don't know. No matter what date range we pick there are issues. If it was early, and supposing language is a crucial factor, why did it then take 90k years before the beginning of civilization? If it was late, say 50k ago...then how the fuck did we manage to limp along all the way up to that moment? What explains the state of artifacts?
What I like about the hunting hypothesis is that hunting large game like hippopotamus or elephant requires a large number of hunters, if we were living in large groups we had many to feed. We could not take the hippo to the camp site, we had to go back to the camp site and inform the tribe.
I'm well aware that is a just so theory, but it's not really mine. It was first proposed by Derek Bickerton. I think maybe I like because it make us (mankind) seem badass.