Regarding “sufficient to link to the findings of cognitive science,” others, and I, have extensively critiqued cognitive archaeology (Ann Solomon etc), demonstrating that there is no agreed cognitive model of culture yet. JB Harrod is among the people working on one (see his papers on Researchgate, where I have also posted some links to mine). My book Stoneprint places hard-wired features in culture, in the relevant theoretical contexts of art history, archaeology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, communication science, sociology; and the practical context of cultural crafts (cosmology, astrology, etc).
Regarding “biological foundations of language,” there is more to language, and the other cultural media, than physiology and conscious cognition. The humanities lag far behind physics in data and theory. Biology is also a set of expressions of the structure that enables the interplay between matter and energy, thus life is also a kind of ‘language’.
Regarding your lab equipment, the few eye focal tracking results that I have seen, seem not to hover over focal points, such as eyes, in artworks. Have two eyes of a viewer been tested together? Since the blind spot left and right are in different places, and the brain compensates, perhaps we view artworks like we view peripherals, by focusing adjacent to allow black and white secondary focus? Please see some of my structuralist art analysis examples, and advise whether your gizmos could test any aspect of spatial perception in complex texture, such as axial pairs?
Gary, regarding Gobekli Tepe, why do you find it “an archaeological behemoth”? You write about diffusion from Egypt being traceable in recent cultures, and of the San, who were contemporary with Gobekli, and of kivas as being distinct and diffused. What places Gobekli outside your study?
If your neighbouring clusters of Hohokam, Anasazi and Uto-Aztecan, are “discrete” cultures (as defined by stylistic differences, I assume), then it would be difficult to track the diffusion of imported styling (which did, and still do, occur). And impossible to track supposed diffusion of core features of culture.
Thank you for the diffusion example of North African Berber Tuareg buildings, and Anasazi including Hopi buildings (including, I assume, star map layouts?), and cliff towns, and some symbols (crow beak as war, v crow foot as war). This is a cluster of features, perhaps confirmed by the presence of a particular human lymphocyte antigen. But this diffusion does not demonstrate that culture requires diffusion. Do some features, or some genes, have boundaries?
Regarding "A circle with a cross means street, town intersection, in Egyptian (Budge).” Yes it does, thank you for correcting me. Gardiner also has (X), niw, village, always with a -t for place, feminine. But it is a wide cross, of two roads, never a thin (+). And it requires a set (a convention of disambiguation) to mean anything. Both signs occur worldwide, usually not as signs, sometimes meaning something else, or nothing in the conscious domain, nothing 'real' in archaeological terms (recognisably similar interpretation by most members). I maintain that any cross in a circle, does not have any Egyptian meaning in Khoe or Koranna or Indian engravings.
Regarding; “Are you really saying that nothing or very little is shared when discrete cultures bump into each other?” You are posturing, not responding to my comments. I noted in my first comment that diffusion occurs, and noted again that it occurs all the time, and again, that therefore studying diffusion is somewhat pointless.
Regarding “never say always”, science has to rise above common sense, or it is not science (Carl Popper). I have defined and summarised the predictive function of about 100 structuralist features, each with an average frequency, many of which are known. I have presented 400 examples. After 600 tests, I am still looking for exceptions, and confident that I will find some. The closer to absolutes, the more scientific, the less rhetorical.
Regarding ‘completely different DNA and completely different cultures of Navajo and Hopi tribes’, that depends on your definitions of DNA, and culture. ‘Their’ genes and cultures are merging, and with others. Do you study this current diffusion too?
Regarding many abstract shaped engravings at Datura flower sites, I accept that the seeds induce visions of moth-man, and particular shapes. But shapes are not exclusive to sources or meanings. See H/I-shapes at Gobekli. See comb shapes on the Minoan Phaistos disc. They may well have a structuralist function or ‘determinant‘ category, but difficult to test for in artworks, and more so in building sites.
Eddie Larry, hard wiring means a recurrent function of an organism in its environment, like bees building hives, it does not mean physical, chemical, electric, etc brain architecture. Brains are “less important than how we use it”? Perhaps brains use us. See my article on the hippocampus, spatial orientation, and memory;
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 20-Apr-18 07:56 by Edmond.