WVanhou237 (
3 Oct 1996 05:10:50 -0400

In article <52r62m$>, Bob Keeter
<> writes:

>differentiators between Homo Sapiens and "hominids slightly lower
>than mankind". As a matter of fact, I have read several discussions
>where the association of cave art with modern man was one of the
>main distinctions (aside from skeletal material) separating modern
>man and Neanderthals.
>>This would not throw a monkey wrench into current paleoanthropological
>>thought, and I'm surprised it hasn't been forwarded as an explanation by
>>the more skeptical members of the anthropological world.
>You might as well suggest Pithecantropus doing Piccasso's! 8-) Afraid
>that "early men" just did not build shrines, do art, etc (at least not
>in the more accepted theories!).

To the poster who prompted that rejoinder: The answer is probably
that no skeletal remains of pre-Hss have as yet been found. And the
problem of a land bridge
during the pre-Hss era.

Now to the real reason for this note. I find troubling the train of
thought that Neanderthal was some lump with no thought beyond his empty
belly. Then along comes Hss with a "soul" and all kinds of lofty thoughts
about the "hereafter" and

There is a school of thought about whether Piccasso had any idea what
"Art" is.
(I belong to that school myself). And another group who think that the
mind and the body are shrine enough. That need no piles of stones to
remind them of "self".
What was the purpose of ochre pigment and flower pollen found with the
remains of Neanderthals? Maybe we should be talking about durable and
perishable art. If a neanderthal chose different shades of animal skins to
wear together because they were pretty, stuck flowers in his hair, and
incised circles and lines on his wooden clubs and spear shafts, would not
that have been "Art"

I think those 170K year ago "people" thought that life just goes in
circles and tried to express that thought in their "Art"

W. .F. Van Houten
What evil shadows in the hearts of men ?
The Lurker knows!