? Polygenesis, Out of Africa

[Larry Trask]

On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 X99Lynx at aol.com wrote:

[LT]

> <<...So, if Neandertals had language, then surely so did
> the common ancestor of Neandertals and modern humans,...>>

> Why does that follow?  Why couldn't language could have started
> during the existence of Neanderthals.  With much respect, I don't
> think there is any evidence for this.

The suggestion I was replying to was that our own ancestors might have
acquired language, by contact, from Neandertals who already had it.
And that idea I find implausible.

The entirely different view, that language originated early enough that
both Neandertals and our own direct ancestors -- assuming these were
distinct -- both inherited it, is one I have no quarrel with.

[LT]

> <<...and no appeal to "borrowing" from Neandertals is necessary or
> appropriate.>>

> Again, I don't think there is any evidence for this.

Sorry; I don't follow.  Evidence for what?

[LT]

> <<The position of the Neandertals in our family tree is still much
> debated, but the majority view still sees them as *not* being among our
> direct ancestors. >>

> You may not be aware that rather recently the reverse process
> actually went on in the scientific community.  Based on a stream of
> work starting with Solecki, in fact, with much fanfare - Homo
> neanderthalensis was rechristened, in most textbooks I guess, to
> Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.  It even made Time back in around
> 1993 or so.  That status is being challenged again currently.

Oh, I am aware of this.  I've been following this story, though not
intently, for decades.

> As to the "majority" you refer to, I'd suggest that you might want
> to take a second look when you use that term.  I suspect that a head
> count in this arena would be difficult to take, and even that "a
> majority" might not include opinions you would want included.  (If
> you are refering to some kind of actual survey, however it would be
> good to know about.)

I know of no survey.  I am merely reporting impressionistically on what
I read.  And my clear impression at present is that those who want to
see Neandertals as direct human ancestors are a minority, and have been
for some time.  There are others who, more cautiously, want to see
Neandertals as having made *some* contribution to our genes, but even
these do not appear to be a majority at present.

> Most researchers would honestly say I think that there are no clear
> probabilities in tracing the Neanderthal's relatedness or
> unrelatedness to humans.  Any strong opinion would be fairly
> worthless as a matter of sheer uncertainty.

Well, I have no memory for names, but, a year or two ago, a German study
was published, with much fanfare, announcing that genetic investigations
had revealed no Neandertal contribution to our own genes.  The chief
researcher had an unusual name, which looked Estonian or Finnish to me,
but, as usual, I can't remember it.  Anybody else recall it?

> I'd like to refer you to Naming our Ancestors (Meikle and Parker,
> 1994).   Its a very useful reference on the terms and principles of hominid
> taxonomy.

Well, I don't know this, and I thank you for the reference, but the
issue here is not one of terms and principles, but rather one of
tree-drawing.

> <<Anyway, our ancestors could not have acquired language unless they
> already had a language faculty.>>

> I'd ask you to look at this statement again and consider its
> meaningfulness.

Why?  I was considering the possibility of acquiring language by
contact.  And I really find it hard to believe that a species with a
biological language faculty could fail to have language, or that a
species with no language faculty could acquire one by contact.

> There really is no way to ascertain what a language faculty is or
> would look like without evidence of language - of which there is
> none at this early date.

Fair enough.

[LT]

> <<And, if they had a language faculty, then surely they would already have
> possessed language themselves.>>

> Again I'd ask you to look at this.  Logically, if a language faculty
> is different than language, then yes they could have had the faculty
> and no language.  One doesn't follow the other - unless they are one
> and the same entity.

The first statement may be logically valid, but I myself find it hard to
conceive of such a state of affairs.  I really do not believe that
learning a language is like learning to ice-skate.  Clearly our
ancestors had an "ice-skating faculty" before any of them ever learned
to ice-skate, but I just can't see our language faculty as the same sort
of animal as an "ice-skating faculty".  Of course, you're free to
disagree with me here, and I know of one linguist who does, but only
one.

> Back in the 1980's when Broca's area in the brain was widely
> promoted as the essential element to language (since that time its
> been fairly well proven that it is not essential at all) an
> identification in the bones was made that may be of interest here:

> <<The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in one
> habilis brain cast, and indicates it was possibly capable of speech.
> Homo habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and
> about 45 kg (100 lb) in weight, although females may have been
> smaller. >>

> This is to my knowledge the only correlation made between the actual
> physical evidence and some notion of a brain based language
> "faculty."  It would date language significantly earlier than
> anything mentioned on this list.

Yes, and I alluded to this in an earlier posting, though I recall that
the work I saw focused on H. erectus, not on H. habilis.  Maybe I'm
misremembering.

> The only current dialogue I know of that actually pertains to the physical
> evidence is the jaw nerve canal studies at Duke and UC that I mentioned
> earlier.  These seem to indicate a capability for complex speech comparable
> to modern (current) humans, though the findings have been challenged on
> averaging grounds.

I have no quarrel in principle with arguments that language is older
than our own species.  I see no reason to reject such a suggestion out
of hand.  It's just that I haven't come across very many people
defending such a position.  However, if this position eventually
triumphs, fine.

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk