Homo Erectus and language

[outhouse]

Ive been in a few good debates about this

I will state they had language with certainty

I will state they had a developed Brocas area
Fire use
Tool making
Hunting
bodies almost identical to ours
over a million years to practice.


and yes physically they had all the tools for language even if it would be the lower end of the sapiens range

 

[Iti oj]

Ive been in a few good debates about this

I will state they had language with certainty

I will state they had a developed Brocas area
Fire use
Tool making
Hunting
bodies almost identical to ours
over a million years to practice.


and yes physically they had all the tools for language even if it would be the lower end of the sapiens range

I agree good post. Is this for something?

 

[freethinker44]

Is there some kind of controversey surrounding this? I didn't even realize it was worth debating. What would the implications be if they did have some rudimentary language skills?

 

[fallingblood]

If this is for debate, I think there has to be clarity. Are you talking about body language or oral language? Because everything you described could be accomplished through body language.

If you are talking about an oral language, you need a better argument.

 

[outhouse]

If this is for debate, I think there has to be clarity. Are you talking about body language or oral language? Because everything you described could be accomplished through body language.

If you are talking about an oral language, you need a better argument.

it is for oral language

why?

they have the ability for speech at the lower end of the sapien range, as well as a developped brocas area


what is stopping them from having a language?


really the question here is what level of language did they have.

 

[fallingblood]

it is for oral language

why?

they have the ability for speech at the lower end of the sapien range, as well as a developped brocas area


what is stopping them from having a language?


really the question here is what level of language did they have.

Again, all you provided could be explained by body language or communication through signs. I'm not saying you are wrong, but just that your argument needs improvement.

Also, just because one has the tools for speech, doesn't mean they can use them. Various species of fish have the tools for sight, but it just didn't develop fully.

 

[outhouse]

Is there some kind of controversey surrounding this? I didn't even realize it was worth debating. What would the implications be if they did have some rudimentary language skills?

there is a debate for the certainty I speak of.

in past work done, many have claimed they could not possess language


recent work on the brocas area and language, have now shown tool making and language come from this area.

with a developped brocas area, and tool making, this is a positive sign of a potential for laguage that has evolved, 1. with increased brain and Brocas area size 2. with a body, throat, and vocal cords that could produce language at the lower range of Sapiens

 

[outhouse]

Again, all you provided could be explained by body language or communication through signs. I'm not saying you are wrong, but just that your argument needs improvement.

Also, just because one has the tools for speech, doesn't mean they can use them. Various species of fish have the tools for sight, but it just didn't develop fully.

Well lets take apes, and their ability for some to sign. They possess the mental ability for language at much reduced level of Sapiens. They lack the physical aspects for intricate language.

We also new studies showing apes have different IQ's.

Apes can laugh, allthough different then ours, they can yell, scream and use their voice to communicate


So we have a range with apes as a foundation, and sapiens as advanced.

I find no evidence that language would not evolve with brain size.


which brings us around to Erectus, they are more human then ape, have the brain fuction and mental skill far above all apes and much more developped Brocas area

Some Apes do possess physical language allthough crude.

And Erectus possessed the physical ability for intricate language. I think this ability existed in Hablis but at a much more primitive stage ressembling apes more then humans.

I would also posit like some Sapien tribes, certain Erectus tribes only possessed very crude and primitive language based on social isolation

 

[fallingblood]

Well lets take apes, and their ability for some to sign. They possess the mental ability for language at much reduced level of Sapiens. They lack the physical aspects for intricate language.

We also new studies showing apes have different IQ's.

Apes can laugh, allthough different then ours, they can yell, scream and use their voice to communicate


So we have a range with apes as a foundation, and sapiens as advanced.

I find no evidence that language would not evolve with brain size.


which brings us around to Erectus, they are more human then ape, have the brain fuction and mental skill far above all apes and much more developped Brocas area

Some Apes do possess physical language allthough crude.

And Erectus possessed the physical ability for intricate language. I think this ability existed in Hablis but at a much more primitive stage ressembling apes more then humans.

I would also posit like some Sapien tribes, certain Erectus tribes only possessed very crude and primitive language based on social isolation

All you're getting at though is a possibility. They had what seems like an ability for oral language. Or more like a form of oral communication. I think language implies something a little more advanced than just communication.

I think it would be quite obvious that they had forms of communication. However, without more evidence, a statement regarding them having an oral language is murky.

For instance, if we look at your example of apes, do they have an actual language? Or do they have a crude form of oral communication?

 

[Leonardo]

All you're getting at though is a possibility. They had what seems like an ability for oral language. Or more like a form of oral communication. I think language implies something a little more advanced than just communication.

I think it would be quite obvious that they had forms of communication. However, without more evidence, a statement regarding them having an oral language is murky.

For instance, if we look at your example of apes, do they have an actual language? Or do they have a crude form of oral communication?

Something about the human origins based on socialization was vastly different from any other ape appeared as early as Australopithecus and the evidence for that was the substantial decrease in the size of canine teeth of these early hominids.

Brain size in not necessarily indicative of a capacity for oral language. The African grey parrot for example can learn words and crudely form novel sentences. An animal slightly more sophisticated than a chimpanzee could form a proto-language from the use of calls that incorporates time. Most animals, other than humans, can not communicate issues of time. If you think about that, a subtle change in the use of calls to communicate past, present or future contexts is a very powerful tool. With such a oral tool those animals that use it best form stronger alliances and are more useful or productive peers and the need for canine teeth to establish leadership becomes obsolete!

Language may very well have been a slow evolution just like our physiology. As brain size increased the slow subtle changes in the use of calls eventually leads to specialized brain centers for very sophisticated language.

 

[George-ananda]

and yes physically they had all the tools for language even if it would be the lower end of the sapiens range

So that's who's been challenging my RF posts....

 

[outhouse]

For instance, if we look at your example of apes, do they have an actual language? Or do they have a crude form of oral communication?

Both


some apes that can sign, which is rare, do have a higher IQ and possess a primitive physical language, and a crude form of oral communication, which can be found in our genetics and habits today. [like laughter]

 

[outhouse]

Language may very well have been a slow evolution just like our physiology. As brain size increased the slow subtle changes in the use of calls eventually leads to specialized brain centers for very sophisticated language.

excellent and to my point.


I see nothing that indicates this wasnt the case.


the Brocas area could have evolved from tool making or tool use, not language.

But as this area slowly develloped in previous species to Erectus, it would have given them the ability to form a larger vocabulary.


Part of my evidence of language would be the length of time they lasted as a species which is a amazingly long time over a million years. This states there were successful as a proto-human, and one would probably need language to last this long. conclusive evidence no.

with hunting, fire making, tool use and tool making however, shows a high degree of intelligence.

Their hand axes alone show they were not stupid in any way, and this tool use does correlate to language skills according to some scientist, add to the fact their bodies would allow intricate language at the lower levels of homo sapiens. I think its upon those that think they had no language to provide evidence to overcome what we now know. The tables are turned as their is enough evidence with recent studies of the brocas area.

 

[painted wolf]

Broca’s Area isn't the only part of the brain to think about here.

Yes, it's important to the ability to use speech (mostly for grammar), but it is more likely to have been enlarged for it's arguably more important role in object manipulation (and thus tool use).

There is another part of the brain that is just as important for understanding and forming meaningful speech the Wernicke’s area... and this area doesn't appear to show any signs of expansion.

Now that doesn't mean they were totally non-verbal... just that what we consider language wasn't quite yet developed. You can produce a lot of complex behavior and tools without "language".

You can also produce a lot of meaningful vocalization without it. Vervet monkeys for example have "words" without language. And apes grasp some of the concepts of language without being able to vocalize it.

I would also add that given the extremely low level of cultural change seen in H.erectus it would be unlikely that they were fully verbal. Language makes cultural change dynamic on many levels, including the ability to discuss tool production techniques.
These were a people that didn't change culturally... despite having lived nine times longer than we have they never changed.

Basically... at this point we can't say for certain if these people used language as we understand it or not.

However, it's my opinion that language arose not long after them (or at least not until their very end). Likely in the last common ancestor of Humans, Neanderthals and the Dmanisi people. This is when we see a blossoming of different cultures and otherwise distinct but genetically close species.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

Thanks for the reply

I would also add that given the extremely low level of cultural change seen in H.erectus it would be unlikely that they were fully verbal.

do you think this could be due to the low population levels?

yet we see some pretty dynamic changes in the Erectus line.

advanced tool making
use of fire

You can produce a lot of complex behavior and tools without "language".

I agree to a point

I just think Erectus has been underestimated


There was a great show on TV and I cant recall it, its not the one I first posted. But scientist studied the Brocas area and other ares of language development abd stated Erectus most likely had language. This is what put me on the hunt.

 

[Warren Clark]

This thread reminds me of when people hear something for the first time and expect it to be true and the professor goes, "this is why I am going to train you to be scientists."

 

[Secret Chief]

...just watched Prehistoric Autopsy with Dr Alice Roberts...

This week was the turn of Neanderthal and included some speech synthesis. (Apparently I'm about 2-4% Neanderthal; probably why I like heavy metal).

I think next week is the turn of Homo Erectus.

 

[Leonardo]

I would also add that given the extremely low level of cultural change seen in H.erectus it would be unlikely that they were fully verbal. Language makes cultural change dynamic on many levels, including the ability to discuss tool production techniques. These were a people that didn't change culturally... despite having lived nine times longer than we have they never changed.

All animals that use calls do so from a cultural perspective, each group develops their own set of unique calls. I remember living in an apartment complex where two Mocking Birds took the court area as their territory. Any time someone or something, cat , dog, other birds entered the area one of the birds would sound off a sequence of chirps. If I entered the court area it was one chirp every second. If another neighbor entered the chirp sequence changed, when a neighbor's cat entered the chirp sequence was a rapid set of three, a pause then two more chirps. But each and every person and animal that entered the court got a call sequence from the pair of birds.

So the calls are uniquely created by each group and the complexity is more than just generalized food, predator, mate, etc, but they do actually name each and every living thing in their territory.

So when you say homo erectus never changed culturally that could not be accurate since all animals develop a unique culture of sorts.

 

[painted wolf]

All animals that use calls do so from a cultural perspective, each group develops their own set of unique calls. I remember living in an apartment complex where two Mocking Birds took the court area as their territory. Any time someone or something, cat , dog, other birds entered the area one of the birds would sound off a sequence of chirps. If I entered the court area it was one chirp every second. If another neighbor entered the chirp sequence changed, when a neighbor's cat entered the chirp sequence was a rapid set of three, a pause then two more chirps. But each and every person and animal that entered the court got a call sequence from the pair of birds.

So the calls are uniquely created by each group and the complexity is more than just generalized food, predator, mate, etc, but they do actually name each and every living thing in their territory.

So when you say homo erectus never changed culturally that could not be accurate since all animals develop a unique culture of sorts.

Sorry I should have been more specific.

I'm using culture in a more material culture sense (ie. tool use). Since we can't tell what sort of "soft" culture H.erectus may or may not have had.

The material culture of H.erectus never changed over their history. If they were capable of talking about tool making, it would not be unreasonable to have seen some sort of innovation over that time.

If however each individual learns by watching and imitation (as in tool use with our living ape cousins) we would expect that innovation would not be common. There is no way to really spread the idea through the population. And this is what we see in Chimpanzee tool use.

Lot's of tool use going on... but next to no innovation in the material culture.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Thanks for the reply

Anytime.

do you think this could be due to the low population levels?

Not really. I don't think their populations would be all that much lower than early on in our species history. Certainly no lower than the Neanderthals who never seemed to have a large population to being with.

yet we see some pretty dynamic changes in the Erectus line.

Not really... a hand-ax is a hand-ax is a hand-ax. The tools that they were making in the early days are essentially identical to the ones they were making in their last days.

They didn't develop a suite of tools or any regional variations in tools.

advanced tool making

Nope. Certainly more advanced than pebble tools, but again they had the hand-ax and they stuck with it. No awls or scrapers... just the hand-ax. The only real variation was in size.

In fact, the hand-axes being used by H.erectus weren't really much different than those used by the other early Homo species that preceded them. It wasn't until after H.erectus that Homo started using different tools for different jobs.

(fun fact... the quality of your hand-ax may have had a social role as well. A nice one may have made you sexy and/or intimidated rivals. Evidence for this comes from the fact that some hand-axes were impractical as tools due to their size)

use of fire

Doesn't require language to learn.

I agree to a point

I just think Erectus has been underestimated

Absolutely... these were the first great explorers in our lineage. They were a fantastic people and they totally deserve more respect and attention.

But, we have to be careful not to go overboard. They weren't us... they didn't care for the sick or injured as we do, they didn't bury their dead... that also hints that they didn't have language.
Caring for the sick requires that you be able to ask the other what is wrong and being able to articulate your needs to those who want to help you.

If H.georgicus is actually H.erectus georgicus then we have the first evidence of elder care and the case for language in this population grows a bit stronger (at least in this particular population).

There was a great show on TV and I cant recall it, its not the one I first posted. But scientist studied the Brocas area and other ares of language development abd stated Erectus most likely had language. This is what put me on the hunt.

Well, like I said... Broca's area is also key in manipulating objects. So, while it's tempting to use development here to imply language... it's not solid evidence.

IMHO the development in the Broca's area is more likely tied to the development of those wonderful hand-axes.

wa:do