Gordon wrote:
> Depending on when you start the clock, our
> primitive Cro-Magnon ancestors and their ancestors had something like
> 2,000,000 years to do something significant with all that free time. Two million
> years is a very long time and they have almost nothing to show for it.

Ardeith writes:
Maybe you mean.....they "left" nothing behind to become
fossils we could dig up and point to as their accomplishments?
It is sometimes enlightening to consider how much of our
great "advances" would be left for future generations to
find if those "advances" were exposed to the actions of
wind, rain, blowing sand, mud, animal damage, plant roots
growing through, flood waters.    The only reason the
Mona Lisa is still intact to be admired is because the
painting has been protected.   Had it been left to the
elemental forces of Mother Nature, it would hardly
have lasted one year, much less fifty thousand years.
The cave paintings our early ancestors made are
still available to view because they were protected
in caves.   And even there, many of them were damaged
by mineral deposits from water dripping through the
caves.

Gordon wrote:
Their  neolithic progeny accomplished more in 10 thousand years than they
did in the
2 million prior!

Ardeith writes:
Yeah, this is true if you consider turning fertile land into desert,
wiping out several species of animals, destroying rainforest,
and polluting the air and water all over the planet an "accomplishment."

Gordon wrote:
> Why did they never find time to invent written language?

Ardeith writes:
What use did they have for written language?  They told their
stories of creation, of why things are as they are, of what the
animals do, of how the plants grow, of how to make the things
they needed in their lives......all of these things were passed
along in stories and songs.  They didn't need to write them
down.   Why would they?  They were a traveling people,
and had no need for excess baggage.....which is exactly what
written material would have been for them.....stuff they didn't
need.

Gordon wrote:
Why did  they never find time to invent complex musical intruments
and write complex  symphonies?

Ardeith writes:
How do you know they didn't?   If you put a violin out in the
weather, how long do you think it would last?  On the other
hand, you can make a musical instrument with a gourd, a
fairly straight stick, and the long hairs from an animal's tail.....
which won't last long in the weather, but which is easily
replaced.   The music "primitive" people make....using easily
made instruments of wood and cord and bone and stone
has been recorded by modern people and has been found
to be quite complex and rich.   The human voice is also
a complex musical instrument and we've had it as long as
we've been human.   Our ancestors could have been as
gifted musically as any modern choir, but would have
left nothing to "show for it."

Gordon wrote:
> Why did they never find time to learn to build complex homes?

Ardeith writes:
Why should they, and HOW could they?  They moved
across the landscape......following herds, following the
seasonal growth of plants......brush and hide shelters
were all they had.    Look around your own home......
imagine that you are going walk-about for a couple
of years.   What would you try to take along?   I'll
allow you a knife (which our ancestors made of stone
but you are not a flintknapper.)  I'll even allow you a
plastic jug to carry water since I doubt you have a
supply of ostrich eggshells or cured animal stomachs
to use for that.   You'll need some clothes, a blanket,
a cooking pot, some way to make fire.   How are you
with a fire-bow?   Or maybe you're adept with flint
and steel (but our ancestors didn't have steel.)  You
can take along a wooden flute (Oh, OK...I'll allow you
a harmonica) you can take a wood and hide drum,
you can even carry along a stringed instrument to
strum.   But you cannot have a tent, sleeping bag,
campstove, lantern, candles, matches.  Maybe you
could have a woven basket to carry things in.....on
your back.    Now, what are the most vital things
you want to take along?

Gordon wrote:
Why did never they find time to learn to paint beautiful
masterpieces on canvas?

Ardeith writes:
First, they didn't have canvas.   They had animal hides,
which they may have decorated very beautifully, but
we'll never know as such things rot when exposed to
weather.   And they didn't have oil paints....they had
a variety of ground up stone pigments which were
mixed with animal fats......and rodents and insects
will eat such paints if given a chance.   And as I
said above, their cave paintings were also subject
to the action of water, in addition to the action
of smoke from the fires our ancestors built in the
caves.

Gordon wrote:
> Could it be that they were actually quite capable

Ardeith writes:
Of course they were.  Afterall, we are, and we descended
from them and inherited all the potentials they had.........

Gordon wrote:
but that before  the advent of agriculture and animal husbandry
people were just too blasted  preoccupied with the procurement
of basic necessities to focus much attention on exploring the
higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy?

Ardeith writes:
I've forgotten Maslow....don't remember that stuff anymore.
But I don't consider agriculture an "advent" of any sort.
There was far more food available....in greater variety...
before agriculture took a hand in the over-population
of the landscape with humans.   In early times, if a drought
occurred, our ancestors moved on......but once they had
committed to an agricultural lifestyle....they could not
"move on" and often times starved.   They became too
many for the land they lived on to support.....and they
had to migrate or starve.   The HG's always moved on.
One of the reasons we see pictures of starving children
on TV today is that they cannot move on.   Their lands
won't support their numbers, but they cannot leave.
And every time we send food ..... we are preparing the
way for the next bout of starvation......no matter how
much food we send....they are still too many for their
land to support, and they cannot move to where food
is more available.
Animal husbandry is a different matter.   The Laplanders
went from following the deer, to herding the deer.  And
they selectively cullled the male deer who wanted to
fight other males for breeding rights, or the deer that
wandered away from the herd.  Just as shepherds cullled
the sheep that wanted to stray from the herd.   All without
agriculture.....they were herders, and primitive by our
standards.   Our ancestors were not rooted to the land.
They followed the herds.....the wild herds as well as the
herds they had semi-domesticated.   And they hunted
and gathered in much the same ways as those ancestors
who did not "claim" particular herds.