On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, gordon wrote:

> It depends on how you define "cultural leap forard". I don't know to what
> you are referring but primitive cave paintings and the like do not
> consititute a great leap forward in my opinion.

I'm drawing on Jared Diamond's book, _The Third Chimpanzee_ here.
Anatomically modern human beings (i.e., beings whose remains are
indistinguishable from ours) appeared about 100,000 years ago,
but their tools and the like remained as primitive as those of
homo erectus, from a long time before.

But those cave paintings are not all that primitive, and it was
around this time -- 40,000 years ago -- that sophisticated
implements such as bows and arrow, sculptures, musical
instruments, and artistically ornamented tools, begin to appear.
This is the Great Leap Forward, the abrupt change from the
relatively static primitivism of the previous milennia.

> In any case, whether you
> draw the line at 40,000 BC or 10,000 BC, there was clearly a "Great Leap
> Forward" in human history at about this time, and it occured at or within
> hailing distance of the beginnings of agriculture and animal husbandry. I am
> compelled by common sense to assume a legitimate association between these
> events but I am willing to be persuaded of various causal explanations.

I disagree.  It matters a great deal whether one draws the line
at 40,000 or 10,000 years ago.  The former date is not really
within hailing distance of agriculture or even pastoralism, as
far as we can tell.  These were hunter-gatherers who, for some
reason, suddenly became more sophisticated.

> One theory is that aliens from outer space came to teach us, and perhaps
> even inter-breeded with the earthly human species. I do not believe that
> theory but I mention it because its very existence and popularity
> underscores the strong need for an explanation. It seems that something very
> dramatic happened at the transition from paleolithic to neolithic, and to me
> the most logical and non-supernatural explanation is that the human mind was
> finally freed up for loftier pursuits by farming and animal husbandry. I see
> agriculture more as a cause than an effect of this revolution.

But if the transition began well before agriculture, then that
cause and effect hypothesis must be rejected.  That "something
very dramatic" started happening long before agriculture.

> It and animal
> husbandry would be rudimentary discoveries that would have been most likely
> to be uncovered by a hungry but otherwise ignorant paleolithic world. Hunger
> can be a great source of inspiration.

Why would agriculture be likely to be discovered by very hungry
people?  If you were very hungry, would it make much sense for
you to use what little energy you had to plant fields of grains,
when you don't even normally eat grains?  Why would paleolithic
people have been especially hungry 10,000 years ago, when that
was the *end* of the last glaciation, and the beginning of the
current temperate period?

Todd Moody