Re: still here "caves

Very interesting data Nigel. And I too am relieved to hear that mutilation was likely not an viable
conclusion Angela.  The film I watched about this was fairly recent, the presumption being that much has
been analyzed about the site over the past few years that I am unaware of.  In the film the cat-walks were
still in place and virtually nothing had been touched.  I’ll have to follow up with the book and some
further research, thank you Nigel.  Norman, glad to see you weigh in on this.
I think, as humans we’re particularly vulnerable when it comes to the postulations we entertain
about the relationship between man and his environment in pre-historic times.  The use of the term
primitive is largely misunderstood.  Case in point:  ask any elementary school student to describe
ancient civilization.  You will quickly become aware of the fact that they equate primitive with words
such as simple, basic, instinctive, underdeveloped, and sometimes even stupid.  All are descriptions
that create fertile ground for the oft drawn conclusion that these civilizations were intellectual
midgets.  This is where it becomes vital that we have an accurate understanding of the true meaning of the
word, which is to describe something in it’s initial stages of development, something new.  The next
term that we often fail to put into appropriate context is the term relative, and in this case I’m
referring to something’s relationship within an identified set of circumstance
 s or environment..a fair comparison.  We also harbour the belief that every generation is less primitive
than the previous generation, which is arguably true simply by definition, but not if the definition
includes assumptions about intellectual ability/capacity.  It’s a subtle distinction, but a
critical one I feel.  

Just to clarify myself, I’m not denying the physical evolutionary advancements, the biological
embellishments so to speak, however to assume that these cultures were in any way intellectually
underdeveloped, least of all, stupid is a highly misleading perspective to come from.  If this were the
case, few truly primitive events or circumstances would survive more than a generation or two.  The value
would be overlooked/dismissed...nobody would have connected the dots, and as we can see...many
survived millenniums.  We have survived millenniums.  Intellectual functioning is as relative as most
other things, which essentially means that there is more evidence to support significant intelligence
than not.
(A side-bar of interest might be whether there is any such thing as a wrong choice in the grand scheme of
things?  A discussion for a different time perhaps.  I’ll go on record as saying that there is NOT).