直立人有语言吗?航海推论

IF 1.6 2区 历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY
Rudolf Botha
{"title":"直立人有语言吗?航海推论","authors":"Rudolf Botha","doi":"10.1017/s0959774324000118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Various authors have claimed over the years that <span>Homo erectus</span> had language. Since there is no direct evidence about the matter, this claim represents the conclusion of a multi-step composite inference drawn from putative non-linguistic attributes of the species. Three maritime behaviours are central among these attributes: crossing open seas to get to insular islands such as Flores in the Indian ocean and Crete in the Mediterranean; building complex watercraft for the crossings; and undertaking navigation in making the crossings. Dubbing it the ‘Seafaring Inference’, the present article reconstructs and appraises the way in which Barham and Everett use the Seafaring Inference to build a case for the claim that <span>Homo erectus</span> had language. This composite inference starts from certain lithic objects found on Flores and ends, via six simple inferences, with the conclusion that <span>Homo erectus</span> had a form of language. The main finding of the article is that this composite inference is flawed in including a simple inference which is unsound and, accordingly, cannot be used to make a strong case for the claim that <span>Homo erectus</span> had language. There is a less well-developed variant of the Seafaring Inference which proceeds from the recovery of lithic objects on Crete. This variant is found to be multiply flawed, there being several simple unsound simple inferences among its components.</p>","PeriodicalId":47164,"journal":{"name":"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Did Homo erectus Have Language? The Seafaring Inference\",\"authors\":\"Rudolf Botha\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0959774324000118\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Various authors have claimed over the years that <span>Homo erectus</span> had language. Since there is no direct evidence about the matter, this claim represents the conclusion of a multi-step composite inference drawn from putative non-linguistic attributes of the species. Three maritime behaviours are central among these attributes: crossing open seas to get to insular islands such as Flores in the Indian ocean and Crete in the Mediterranean; building complex watercraft for the crossings; and undertaking navigation in making the crossings. Dubbing it the ‘Seafaring Inference’, the present article reconstructs and appraises the way in which Barham and Everett use the Seafaring Inference to build a case for the claim that <span>Homo erectus</span> had language. This composite inference starts from certain lithic objects found on Flores and ends, via six simple inferences, with the conclusion that <span>Homo erectus</span> had a form of language. The main finding of the article is that this composite inference is flawed in including a simple inference which is unsound and, accordingly, cannot be used to make a strong case for the claim that <span>Homo erectus</span> had language. There is a less well-developed variant of the Seafaring Inference which proceeds from the recovery of lithic objects on Crete. This variant is found to be multiply flawed, there being several simple unsound simple inferences among its components.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL\",\"volume\":\"74 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959774324000118\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959774324000118","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多年来,许多学者都声称直立人有语言。由于没有这方面的直接证据,这一说法是根据该物种假定的非语言属性进行多步骤综合推断后得出的结论。在这些特征中,有三种海上行为是核心特征:穿越公海前往印度洋的弗洛勒斯岛和地中海的克里特岛等岛屿;为穿越公海建造复杂的水上交通工具;以及在穿越公海的过程中航行。本文将其称为 "航海推论",重构并评估了巴勒姆和埃弗雷特利用 "航海推论 "为直立人拥有语言的说法建立论据的方式。这一综合推论以在弗洛勒斯岛发现的某些石器为起点,通过六个简单的推论,最终得出直立人具有某种语言形式的结论。文章的主要结论是,这一综合推论存在缺陷,其中包括一个不健全的简单推论,因此不能用来有力地证明直立人有语言。航海推论还有一个不太完善的变体,它是从克里特岛发现的石器出发的。我们发现这个变体有很多缺陷,其中有几个简单的不健全的简单推论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Did Homo erectus Have Language? The Seafaring Inference

Various authors have claimed over the years that Homo erectus had language. Since there is no direct evidence about the matter, this claim represents the conclusion of a multi-step composite inference drawn from putative non-linguistic attributes of the species. Three maritime behaviours are central among these attributes: crossing open seas to get to insular islands such as Flores in the Indian ocean and Crete in the Mediterranean; building complex watercraft for the crossings; and undertaking navigation in making the crossings. Dubbing it the ‘Seafaring Inference’, the present article reconstructs and appraises the way in which Barham and Everett use the Seafaring Inference to build a case for the claim that Homo erectus had language. This composite inference starts from certain lithic objects found on Flores and ends, via six simple inferences, with the conclusion that Homo erectus had a form of language. The main finding of the article is that this composite inference is flawed in including a simple inference which is unsound and, accordingly, cannot be used to make a strong case for the claim that Homo erectus had language. There is a less well-developed variant of the Seafaring Inference which proceeds from the recovery of lithic objects on Crete. This variant is found to be multiply flawed, there being several simple unsound simple inferences among its components.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Archaeological Journal is the leading journal for cognitive and symbolic archaeology. It provides a forum for innovative, descriptive and theoretical archaeological research, paying particular attention to the role and development of human intellectual abilities and symbolic beliefs and practices. Specific topics covered in recent issues include: the use of cultural neurophenomenology for the understanding of Maya religious belief, agency and the individual, new approaches to rock art and shamanism, the significance of prehistoric monuments, ritual behaviour on Pacific Islands, and body metamorphosis in prehistoric boulder artworks. In addition to major articles and shorter notes, the Cambridge Archaeological Journal includes review features on significant recent books.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信