Home China Page Tao of China Journey to the West Comments
Having established a context we can now move into the Old Stone Age of the Hunter-gatherers. We are now on ÔfirmÕ archaeological ground. Ha, Ha. As with the most ancient homos, let us not take these ÔprimitiveÕ Paleolithic hunter-gatherers too lightly. Their value systems are still alive and well in modern times, as we shall see.
Archaeologists divide the Old Stone Age into five technological categories based upon the ÔmodeÕ of stone tools used, i.e. Mode 1, Mode 2, É. It will be illuminating to examine this Age as an example of Eurasiafrican cultural diffusion through its technology. Additionally we will discover many more of the polarities that Confucianism and Taoism are based upon.
In order to appreciate the complexity of these lithic, i.e. stone, technologies, let us point out that these techniques of stonework were used to make tools that could make tools. The stone tools as choppers and scrapers were probably used to form the more perishable wood implements. This level of foresight is seen nowhere else in the animal world. Hence not only did the earliest homo have the capacity to pass on technology, he also had the capacity to plan ahead.
This ability to anticipate was crucial to our survival as a species. For one it enabled us to anticipate and prepare for the extreme climatic changes that the Earth regularly manifests. (However the ability to anticipate leads to worry, which leads to the adrenal response. See Consequences of the Adrenal Response)
Although the lithic technological sequence mentioned above is homotaxial, i.e. it always occurs in the same order, it is not universal. (World Prehistory: A New Outline, by Grahame Clark, Cambridge University Press, 1969, p. 30) Superior technologies were used alongside or supplanted the older technologies when in competition with them. They did not emerge independently in different areas disconnected to diffusion. While Mode 1 technologies were spread over the whole of the inhabited world. Mode 2 and 3 technologies did not reach eastern Asia. Mode 3 technology spread north. Hence when Mode 4 technology reached China they jumped from Mode 1 to Mode 4. These technological advances were not based upon an indigenous emergence but instead upon a cultural transmission. This differentiation is key to the discussion that follows.
Scientists also divide the Paleolithic into three time periods, the Lower, Middle and Advanced. The Lower and Middle Paleolithic were associated the early humans, Homo habilis and homo erectus and their Mode 1 and 2 lithic technologies. Homo sapiens with the Mode 3 technology is transitional, while the modern human, homo sapiens sapiens with his Mode 4 and 5 technologies are associated with the Advanced Paleolithic. The subspecies and technologies merge at the boundary lines, certainly an example of fractalization that transcends specific analysis. Thus these categories are broad with no clearly marked boundaries. This diffusion testifies to the continuity of the development of the homo pointing to our connection as a common family rather than as a distinct subspecies. In order to not be misunderstood, it makes perfect sense to break down the Paleolithic, the technologies, and the Homo species into subdivisions, just donÕt look to hard at the specific boundaries.
Our first Homo split from the Australopithecines about 2 million years ago. This was the beginning of the Stone Age. It is from this time that the first technology is found in the stone tools of the time. Remember that these are not just casual tools made from the primitive mind of man. This is a way a tool making that was culturally transmitted. Hence these early stone tools have a pattern behind them. Archaeologists call it mode 1, stone tools. We are not going to get technical about this, but we will point out that this specific technology was transmitted culturally over all the areas that the early Homo habilis lived. This included the warmer areas of the Eurasiafrican landmass, which included Southern Europe, southern Asia, including China, and all of Africa.
Although it is easy, neat, and compact to say that Homo split from the Australopithecines about 2 million years agoÕ, the reality is a more subtle. Actually the difference between the two genera is the subject of extensive debate. In some ways the difference between the two is based more on the ability of homo habilis to have a tool technology rather than on major biological differences. (Clark, p 9) While there is a biological difference between the two, homo habilis having a larger brain and stronger hands, the difference is of a type that some scientists want to call it a refinement of the Australopithecines rather than a brand new species. The only point being is that this species split is linked to cultural developments as well as biological. Certain scientists have suggested that the reason for the development of the larger brain and stronger hands is a result of their tool making ability rather than the tool making being a result of the larger brain and hands. Indeed as we are seeing, human evolution seems to have driven by its interaction with culture and environment rather than being driven by environmental factors alone. Hence under this line of thinking, those Australopithecines that, for whatever reasons, started making tools, stimulated the development of a brand new species of which we are part. The hand-eye-brain connection led to the evolutionary development of the brain and hand. We see the existence of this hand-eye-brain philosophy in the Montessori schools as well as T'ai Chi. Master Ni says watching the hands in Tai Chi simultaneously stimulates and focuses the brain.
Remember that this technology was culturally transmitted. This implies some type of communication over time and generations. Hence the ability to communicate becomes a survival feature and is also selected for evolutionarily.
Furthermore this stone technology was adapted to the environment rather than vice versa. Homo habilis did not adapt separate technologies for different environmental situations but instead adapted the same technology to different environments. This trait is common throughout history. The technique is more important than the raw materials. Regularly the homo species will adapt a tool-making technique developed in one environment to another environment rather than developing a new technology for the new environment. This was true of the copper, bronze, and iron technologies as well as the earlier stone, herding and agricultural technologies. In some ways this dependence upon a specific technology has motivated the homo species of all levels to explore for materials.
This puts the technology on higher footing than the environment in the cultural development of the human tribe. If we connect technology with culture, it means that cultural continuity becomes more important than environment.
While Mode 1 technology is mainly connected with homo habilis, it survived in areas separated from the main stream of cultural dispersion, through homo erectus, homo sapiens and even homo sapiens sapiens. This was especially true in the North China Plain, where Peking man, a form of homo erectus, never adopted the typical ax of homo erectus, but instead remained with the Mode 1 chopping tool. When diffusion occurred to the southern islands including Australia, it was the Mode 1 technology that survived.
Because the stone technologies were transmitted independent of subspecies of homo, we must adopt the theory of diffusion over structuralism. If the technology were inherent in the sub species then it would be found everywhere he was found. While most of homo erectus adopted the Mode 2 lithic technology, some didnÕt and remained in the Mode 1 technology. If structuralism were a factor then wherever homo erectus was found we would also find mode 2 technology. This is not true as pointed out on the North China Plain as well as Australia.
There are certain universal elements common to humans everywhere regardless of transmission. There are also many elements that are diffused culturally. This paper will attempt to differentiate, where possible between the two. We will assume cultural diffusion especially if there are probable transmission routes. The variety of human expression is so diverse that repetitive technological, artistic and cultural aspects will be assumed diffusive. On the other hand if no diffusion route exists then we must certainly look to universalism in human tendency.
While huge monumental pyramids could in their relative simplicity easily be structural, certain more complicated stylistic devices and conventions will be assumed diffusive. While the development of different agriculture techniques in different cultural centers will not be assumed diffusive, but structural, if the techniques and crops are similar then diffusion will be assumed. Specifically rice growing and corn growing is based upon entirely different agricultural technologies. Thus this agricultural adaptation to geography would be assumed structural to humans. However it seems that the Yangtze River Valley rice growing technology followed the rice growing of South East Asia by a millennium. The crop is the same. The technology is the same. The houses are the same. This is not structural but diffusive, to this author at least.
Since we are on the topic of cultural transmission, it must be mentioned that in the case of the Mode 1 chopping tools, the transmission occurred from Africa to West Asia, through India, to South East Asia, up to China. We are talking about the most primitive of the human species, homo habilis. We will see this route of cultural transmission used frequently during prehistoric and historical times. Specifically, for the purposes of this paper, we are talking about the route from South East Asia to China, rather than vice versa. This was the route of cultural transmission that Taoism took.
Since I am in the food business, it must be mentioned that there is evidence that Homo habilis cooked his meat, judging by the charred bones at one of the sites. (Clark, p 36). Homo habilis was little more than a normal predator, but he had certain disadvantages. He was not as quick or strong or big as the other predators in his class. When game was plentiful, there was plenty to go around but when it was scarce due to environmental conditions the other predators had a distinct advantage. The early homo was threatened with extinction over competition for food in his own ecological niche by larger quicker predators. Most primates went vegetarian to more easily compete for food sources. Homo went for the jugular. Instead of becoming quicker – they were too far behind, they began attacking those in their same eco niche. If in the fight for survival a predator consistently loses food to more effective hunters, they must change their diet, become extinct, or destroy their competitors. Homo chose the last alternative.
Those tribes of homo that survived did so by destroying their competitors, not by competing. Hence natural selection chose those tribes that consciously hunted the big game. The mechanism of taste may have been a major contribution factor to this evolution. When hunting in a pack the early homo was a match for the large predators. Those homos with a taste for this meat were able to survive more easily due to the drop in population of their biggest competitors due to consumption. Hence from the earliest human – homo habilis, the taste for the meat was chosen for. It started out small enough in the smaller homo habilis, but became more dominant in homo erectus. Hence the development of taste began with the earliest human who had the first barbecues. This preceded clothes or art.
ÒUmmm. This tastes good mommy.Ó
ÒGlad to hear it son. It is the flesh of one of our biggest competitors, the saber tooth tiger. With one less of those around, we will be able to more easily catch the smaller prey needed to feed our tribe.Ó
Continuing upon the speculative food theme: Just as the interaction of culture and selection influenced human evolution, the interaction of hunting and taste and technology, propelled our evolutionary success. What was the chopper used for? Perhaps sharpening the end of the wooden spear for hunting – perhaps preparing the kill for consumption – probably both. Our taste for the meat of our fellow predators reduced our competition and furthered our survival. This taste propelled our need for new technologies of the hunt. Those tribes whose taste for meat was enhanced tended to survive. [2] The stone spear sharpener becomes very quickly the supreme tool for food preparation, separating those animal bones before cooking. Who knows? These choppers could even have been used for chopping vegetables. Anyway mode 1 lithic technology, used by the most primitive form of the Homo species, homo habilis, was probably developed in connection with food preparation and the hunt. Hence the taste for meat, homoÕs culinary side, has propelled human evolution especially through its technology. Thus homo speciesÕ culinary side is a fundamental aspect of the human experience, preceding art, burial, and the like.
In the restaurant business, it is easy to see how food and status are related. Those with the most money are proud to buy the most expensive wines and food to establish their status in society. Those who can attain seating in exclusive restaurants also establish status this way. Cross-professional status designations can be reached. The connection between status and food is pre-human. It goes back to when we ran in predatory packs, even before we became erect. The strongest member of the pack is allowed to go first, whether a wolf pack or lion pack. The Hunter who feeds the Pack or Tribe is most important to their survival. It is this Hunter who has the most status and goes first. While food preparation and taste only goes back to the earliest human, the connection between food and status is even more primary linked to our ancestry as a predatory pack.
[2]It seems that the aforementioned Boredom Principle might have been first applied to taste, leading these early humans to experiment with food types and preparation. The selective advantage of taste boredom, or its opposite experimental tasting, canÕt be denied. If a species is always trying new things then they will be constantly discovering new food sources. These new food sources will inevitably extend and balance their nutrition, leading to a bigger, stronger, and healthier populace, which will, of course, further their chances of survival. This taste boredom also motivates the population to explore and manipulate their environment. Many of the taste experiments will be unsuccessful, as those of us whoÕve tried new restaurants have discovered. But the successful experiments will perpetuate themselves. ÒThatÕs a great recipe.Ó ÒItÕs a family recipe that weÕve passed down. Would you like it?Ó Things havenÕt really changed that much since these early Paleolithic times.