'Erda' or Geological Epochs and Human Development
Historical Studies: I - introduction, basis of archeology
Part 1: The Origin of Language
[One] must be a philosopher or a theologian to experience the world picture disaster as a debacle for one’s own mental immune system.
—Peter Sloterdijk, Globes: Spheres II
Perhaps, one of my favourite bands in recent memory are the Ocean Collective, now just known as The Ocean. A couple of years back they released, arguably, some of their best work yet in Phanerozoic I and II. Known for their geological, quasi-spiritual and philosophical exposé’s, The Ocean in Phanerozoic I and II take you on a journey through the Phanerozoic eon. This was my first impression, in 2018, with a new kind of media esthetic in modernity—that of geology. Later on, I had fallen in love with, too, John David Ebert’s Archai: a cosmogonic poem. Recently as well encountering a newfound fascination with the earth in William Irwin Thompson’s Imaginary Landscape—a book that details the, then, growing history of the Gaia hypothesis between Bill and his professor friends. Despite finding Imaginary Landscape recently, it is much older than both the work of The Ocean or Archai. In retrospect, it is rather remarkable to witness its thematic evolution. As we have discussed in previous articles, environmentalism is a hot-topic (literally) and everyone across the political spectrum is embed in it.
Earth, as we call it in modern terms, Erda, as the Old High German spoke of it, and the name of the mythic Hellenistic titan Gaia; fascination with these names, and the feeling towards our environment they arouse, is a fascination with our origins. We may imagine: with specifically this ball of moss with its oceanic monstrosities, dirty mammalians and their beastly companions—how and where did life emerge? Really, we cannot truly answer that. The question is deceptive, by its nature. We aren’t necessarily asking a testable theory, but rather a start to a question about esthetics. And then further one of epistemology. This lingering question of “why life at all?” If it could be satisfied, then the Greeks and all other cultures with their motherly earthly deities would have been content. They would have seen no need to prolong their search into more specific enumerations, if all there was to this question, “what land do we live in” was simply answered with, “here, in Her, in Gaia.”
The ability for us moderns to lounge around and speculate, even engage in esthetic contemplation, is a gift. It had used to never be that way. So, if we are to answer any of these questions we should ask specific questions. Where are we? Well, the Earth geologically transitions from Pre-Cambrian to then the Phanerozoic eon triad: the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic. The Dinosaurs existed around the time period of the Mesozoic or also called ‘the age of reptiles and conifers’ (the Jurassic, Triassic and Cretaceous). Our current era is the Cenozoic, ‘the age of mammals’, consisting of the Paleogene period (Paleocene, Eocene and Oligocene epochs) the Neogene period (Miocene and Pliocene epochs) and the Quaternary (Pleistocene and Holocene epochs). The oldest in the Phanerozoic eon was the Paleozoic which contained the Cambrian explosion, the Ordovician, Silurian and Devonian, the Carboniferous Rainforest and its collapse, and lastly the Permian.
Each transition between the various eras of the Phanerozoic eon is started by some cataclysmic ‘mass extinction’ event. For the Paleozoic it was the Permian-Triassic, for the Mesozoic it was the Cretaceous-Paleogene event which is the one we most commonly know: the dinosaurs extinction. Our concerns lie in, again, where are we? It is believed that sometime in the Miocene (note, this begins an entire period ago, in the Neogene) the first genetic humans emerged. That is, the first genetic homos, hilariously enough that naming convention is.
It is debated whether it was the upper Miocene or late-Miocene but it doesn’t matter too much. Most of the eventful human technologies don’t start appearing until much later in the Pleistocene, or we will refer to it as the paleo anthropologist do—the stone age. The stone age is divided into Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic: early, middle and late.
The most prominent imagery of human development is in the use of fire. However, the research is fraught with problems. For us, most of the timelines of habitual fire use don’t date well until 400,000 ya (years ago) or even as early as 1.5 mya (million years ago). First definite stone tools date to around 1.7 mya, so, any development in the harnessing of fire likely coincides minimally with stone tool creations. Believe it or not, fire actually has a history. First appearing, due to charcoal deposits and their dating, around the time of the Silurian in the Paleozoic.
Which is crazy to think about: supposedly in the age of these giant reptilians, plants used to rely on fire to reproduce even. Of course, our mammalian dominated age has plenty of prairies and desserts (thanks to these time periods in deep-time), so for us moderns, fire is less of a hopeful god than a hurtful force. It poses a danger to our current huts and trees. We tend to forget that these prairies and forest do, indeed, need fire to replenish their soil. The Hellenistic peoples with their Prometheus god, perhaps, understood this better. As well, as those older peoples with their fire-places and furnaces, rather than our current Anthropocene plastic and steel environment.
Genetic Gradualism and the Originary Hypothesis
So, we’ve discerned that human development actually pre-dates human technology in all primitive technic forms. This goes even further through what we might imagine pre-historic human past times might’ve been. For example, they were known to paint in their caves and sing. Clearly, something pre-dating culture, actually enabling culture to emerge, must’ve begun this development. For now, let us look at genetic history:
Here we have a couple of the Homo lineage brain-sizes. We see a species wide difference between our older ape cousins and those of the hominins. This transition begins around the late-Miocene and into the Pliocene. What genetically enables this difference is due to geologically shifting conditions, formally, and more informally the development of bipedalism.
Our ancestral species were dependent on both hind and forelimbs for their movement and spent most of their time in trees. But soon, they proceeded towards initial changes such as upright postures like standing, reaching, and squatting, resulting in extended periods of walking and running. Soon, they started using only hind limbs for walking and left their basic arboreal primate body plans. This ability of hind-limb-dominated locomotion is called bipedalism.
Extended hips (precisely, pelvic bone structure) and knee joints are responsible for the alignment of thigh bones (femur) and leg bones so it helps us stand with correct posture. Pelvis, the hip bones have large, blade-shaped bones on both sides (called ilia) and a wedge-shaped bone fused with vertebrae bones (sacrum), and it is unique in humans.
For Paleo Anthropologists:
The paleolithic period in which humans learned to develop stone-based artifacts and tools, adapted human culture, learned food production, and survived on different environmental conditions has affected the brain size in humans.
With the studies, it is believed that the major factor in increasing brain size is the era of tool technology, which is also proved by evidence found in the deep surfaces of the Earth. But, it is not the only responsible factor, others being social complexity, strategies development, pictorial and symbolic communication, and adapting surrounding behavior for which no traces were found.
If we postulate that tool technologies are antecedent to the unique human faculty of language, then so, too, are the rest of these developments. Gans postulates in The End of Culture that we see a major difference in between mature cultures and immature cultures. With the time line that many historians seem to adjust to human development they tend to seek out in the genetic differences posed by homo sapiens, properly and their advanced cultural abilities. These are advanced humans, genetically, but they may not have been the first language users as they live in particularly mature cultures. This faculty is afforded to us as unique and novel language bearers. We should, then, ignore the genetic differences posed by the more advanced homo sapiens and even the tool cultures of the older “proto-humans.”
What is left for us is to see if what Gans poses as the origin of language, as a hypothesis, holds up and describes cultural development more than these other theories. Again, as we have stated, any amount of gradualism cannot actually account for this origin. The best they state is the event where tools, a cultural artefact, are introduced. It is based purely on the newfound advanced cultures started by our, now, genetically advantageous homo sapiens branch, with their massive brains. Clearly, tool use is part of this development, but we must concede even tool use to the more primitive bipedal genetic developments. Why use tools when you can climb, and better utilize your hands in other directions?
The question lies in what exactly humans do? Less so, where human, are, now, as we stated earlier. The gradual history of the brain’s massive growth is used to service a narrative. That narrative is centered around our current uses of our expanded brain capacity. The bipedal development is more interesting, in other cases. Why would humans develop a need to get away from trees?
The article offers some geological accounts, which may have prompted it, but clearly mimetic desire is more important here. Perhaps there weren’t enough food sources in the trees. On foot, too, it is far easier to fight other humans, with free reign of the hands and a stable ground. Arboreal primates lack this in a certain sense. They cannot stabilize themselves as well for fights.
Hypothesized by Gans, the most minimal event to have taken place for the origin of language was likely over a large hunt. Maybe, we had seen the first gathering of humans directed to the same big kill. One they would’ve struggled with alone and had considered, in a mimetic way, the use of others to their advantage, hoping to meek away with a minor scruple to eat later. As mimesis directs itself to more and more dangerous levels, we may have seen it take place many times that this freight and flight away from the scene does exactly happen. A few make it away with a small part of the kill. But, it could have well instigated, that fear of the battle over the meat, a second hunt that stems from the first. One where rather than attacking over the carcass, they attack the few that try to escape. Girardian’s would postulate this as the emissary murder, but nothing is stopping the group from then continuing the killing in a kind of mimetic rage—whoever tries to escape is killed, or simply drops their food to the alpha, nothing new from animal hierarchies.
There’s plenty of times we have glimpses of animal hierarchies, where the alpha of the group gets first dibs. What we see here, is the mimetic destruction of that hierarchy. What had to have happened was enough for everyone to be minimally attracted to the same thing, be that over their fear or appetite. The only thing we can afford is some paradox had to occur.
Whether it is fear of the hunt going array after the kill, or being killed after escaping with some small morsel, mimesis had to find a stand-still. In this, see that Gans’ definition of the “aborted gesture of appropriation” as the first and foremost definition of our origin of language.
We can imagine, perhaps, they extend one arm out to stop the others and one arm out to the carcass. Or more simply, just reversing or hesitating at the carcass. With everyone at a sufficient amount of mimetic danger, they likely would be doing exactly as the other did. Gans in Signs of Paradox stipulated a triangle form of mimesis to better describe this. Mimesis isn’t just appropriating the model of another, as an object, but intending the other as both model and rival. I have merely expanded that more in the earlier dialogue.
Another interesting angle: perhaps the first language use is successful. It is often arguable whether it could’ve survived past a couple generations. It is likely throughout the period of the late Miocene and Pliocene we see many “origins of language” appear and die out. Perhaps, even, small family structures where the father shows teaches his son the “deferral of violence” through stopping his appetitive gesture. They could as well have then saw the more “primitive” enemies indulge themselves in a killing field. We see this happen nowadays, where heritage and being able to use language at a young age is key to being a human. Sociologists often cite those wolf-children, who, despite being raised with our advanced genetic lineage, are unable to use language. Almost purely because they grew up alone in the wilderness. I particularly use the tale of Genie. She was a young girl horribly abused, with massive neglect paid to her health—they wondered how she was even alive in the first place. Even when they rescued her, it was difficult to teach her language at all, over the years of her protection in our human society. Some debate whether she could even use it to begin with or was simply imitating us.
Even though Darwinian evolution would continue to enable this even to become more and more easy to accomplish in genetics, there does seem to be a heritage required. Our key here, historically, is between bipedalism, forcing the killing and the harm from larger creatures of the hunt, and increased brain size. It is far more minimal, and explanative, to say that this increase happens around the first sign: that is the first deferral of violence. Tools and their cultures only really appear after this bipedal development and brain size increase: in the Pleistocene. Rather than suggesting and postulating simple wooden tools (what would prompt a wooden tool over a rock, and then the chipping of a rock into a cleaver?) clearly it is far more likely that the origin of humanity is the locus of the deferral of violence: an emergent event. Then, afterwards, it is secured and enabled genetically and gradually as humans continue to defer all violence their environment launches upon them.
After all, isn’t tool use itself a form of deferring violence from the environment? It presupposes fear of repercussions of a culture that already is inundated with many ways of deferring itself—so, anything that they get the sense that would cause them rage, would then have to be deferred. Why would they need anything more than their hands, already? Animals don’t, for the large part, create tools.
There actually was some recent research with Neanderthals: they had found, in this particular group, a lot of incest was happening. It may have been, albeit in a gross way, a noble manner of continuing to bear successful deferrals of language. Perhaps disgusting, there is small evidence for Neanderthal eugenics happening.
In this article I tried to make it as simple as possible. The next article we will detail Gans’ development of mature culture. We will see how, again, this minimal distinction of the first sign affects the dialectal modes of language. It is not the declarative that comes before the rest, as we see in scientific gradualism, but the transition between ostensive and declarative cultures. In this we will see historical evidence defending Gans’ second, and arguably, more important assertion that the modes of language and high-grammar exist sequentially in their history and dialectally in their emergence. That is to say, they appear one after the other.