When did humans first start to speak? How language evolved in Africa

[Frank Robert]

When and where did human speech evolve?​

Research carried out for this study indicates that the first speech sounds were uttered about 70,000 years ago, and not hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago, as is sometimes claimed in the literature.​

​

​

While my research has been primarily based on phonetic (speech sounds) and linguistic (language) analyses, it has also taken into account other disciplines, like palaeoanthropology (the study of human evolution), archaeology (analysing fossils and other remains), anatomy (the body) and genetics (the study of genes).​

​

​

The transformation of Homo sapiens (modern humans) from a “non-speaking” to a “speaking” species happened at about the same time as our hunter-gatherer ancestors migrated out of Africa.​

​

Why does this all matter?​

The utterance of the very first speech sounds about 70,000 years ago was the beginning of a journey that was to lead to the evolution of human language.

​

That would speech ~65,000 years before the Old Testament was written.

 

[AV1611VET]

What a crock.

 

[Frank Robert]

What a crock.

Of course it would be to someone whose main function in life is to deny multiple sciences.

 

[Estrid]

When and where did human speech evolve?​

Research carried out for this study indicates that the first speech sounds were uttered about 70,000 years ago, and not hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago, as is sometimes claimed in the literature.​

​

​

While my research has been primarily based on phonetic (speech sounds) and linguistic (language) analyses, it has also taken into account other disciplines, like palaeoanthropology (the study of human evolution), archaeology (analysing fossils and other remains), anatomy (the body) and genetics (the study of genes).​

​

​

The transformation of Homo sapiens (modern humans) from a “non-speaking” to a “speaking” species happened at about the same time as our hunter-gatherer ancestors migrated out of Africa.​

​

Why does this all matter?​

The utterance of the very first speech sounds about 70,000 years ago was the beginning of a journey that was to lead to the evolution of human language.

​

That would speech ~65,000 years before the Old Testament was written.

I bet it was a lot longer ago than that.

Hard to picture Neanderthal or H erectus
building fires and making clothes for subzero
weather but having only grunts for vocal communication.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hard to picture Neanderthal or H erectus building fires and making clothes for subzero weather but having only grunts for vocal communication.

Yup.

 

[Ophiolite]

Research carried out for this study indicates that the first speech sounds were uttered about 70,000 years ago, and not hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago, as is sometimes claimed in the literature.

However the study, rather than being a study, sensuo stricto, is a hypothesis based upon the life work of a single researcher, published in book form. (i.e. no peer review.) Now it appears that the author, George Poulos, is a greatly experienced and respected researcher, however, the scores, or hundreds of researchers that provide the material in the rest of the literature on the subject support much earlier origins for speech and language.

It does not follow that one person is wrong just because hundreds hold a different view, but . . . .(tens of) thousands of multi-dsciplinary, peer reviewed research papers versus a book publication by an individual. A bit shaky, perhaps.

And I did think it odd that in a wikipedia list of around 750 noted linguists, Poulos was noticeably absent. OK, it's only wikipedia. Still, 750 notable linguists and George is a no-show. More relevant is the absence of the work in google.scholar, or any citations for it.

On balance I am left decidely lukewarm on the significance of the work.

 

[Ligurian]

The transformation of Homo sapiens (modern humans) from a “non-speaking” to a “speaking” species happened at about the same time as our hunter-gatherer ancestors migrated out of Africa.​

You're starting with a failed premise... if by "our" you don't mean African ancestors.

Not Out Of Africa

Not Out of Africa has sparked widespread debate over the teaching of revisionist history in schools and colleges. Was Socrates black? Did Aristotle steal his ideas from the library in Alexandria? Do we owe the underlying tenets of our democratic civilizaiton to the Africans? Mary Lefkowitz...

books.google.com

Not out of Africa, but into Africa.

"The findings, published in the journal Science, suggests that about 3,000 years ago there was a huge wave of migration from Eurasia into Africa.
This has left a genetic legacy, and the scientists believe up to 25% of the DNA of modern Africans can be traced back to this event."

Ancient DNA reveals 'into Africa' migration

A 4,500-year-old African genome reveals how our ancient ancestors moved back and forth between continents.

www.bbc.com

Mainstream wants everyone to believe that migration either came from the East or the South.
I don't believe either one.

 

[Frank Robert]

You're starting with a failed premise... if by "our" you don't mean African ancestors.

It is not my, it's a hypothesis, it is the hypothesis in the article. Nor am I making the statement that it is "our ancestors" even though I think it is likely.

The main reason for the OP is that if speech began 70,000 yrs ago it would put speech ~65,000 years before the Old Testament was written.

I recently came across this article:

Ancient DNA reveals 'into Africa' migration

Genetic studies have shown that after the great migration out of Africa, which happened about 60,000 years ago, some people later returned to the continent.​

​

But this study shows that about 3,000 years ago there was a much larger migration than had been thought.​

 

[Ligurian]

It is not my, it's a hypothesis, it is the hypothesis in the article. Nor am I making the statement that it is "our ancestors" even though I think it is likely.

The main reason for the OP is that if speech began 70,000 yrs ago

So... hypotheses based on some researchers' theories.
I thought most people linked to an article they're quoting... my bad.
I don't think it's at all likely that the failed-Out-of-Africa construct is marginally viable.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't believe in Black Vikings, either.

---edit to stay on topic---

 

[Hans Blaster]

Kinda hard to believe that there were cave men sitting around grunting to each other for ages...
and not one of them took a piece of charcoal and made pictures and signs...
and then made words... between the years 70k and 6k.

Why would they be "grunting"? From the study referenced in the OP it was 70k years ago that humans started speaking. Writing is irrelevant to ones ability to speak.

 

[Frank Robert]

So... hypotheses based on some researchers' theories.
I thought most people linked to an article they're quoting... my bad.
I don't think it's at all likely that the failed-Out-of-Africa construct is marginally viable.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't believe in Black Vikings, either.

I do think maybe Aristotle-and-others got their info from the Library at Alexandria, though... contrary to Lefkowitz.
Might actually be why it was burned down, taking all the histories of the Mediterraneans, etc., with it.
What's up with people who burn other people's histories, anyway? ... Who benefits?

Here's the other thing... speech leads to written languages... isn't that where you're going with the 70k date stamp thing?

Plato, Critias: "... these [laws] were inscribed by the first king on a pillar of orichalcum at the temple of Poseidon."

Strabo: "Turdetani… are the most cultured of all the Iberians; they employ the art of writing and have written books containing memorials of ancient times, and also poems and laws set in verse, for which they claim an antiquity of six thousand years."

Diodorus Siculus: "Men tell us... that the Phoenicians were not the first to make the discovery of letters; but that they did no more than change the form of the letters, whereupon the majority of mankind made use of the way of writing them as the Phoenicians devised."

Tacitus: "The Phoenicians gained the reputation of inventing a form of writing, which they merely received."

Kinda hard to believe that there were cave men sitting around grunting to each other for ages...
and not one of them took a piece of charcoal and made pictures and signs...
and then made words... between the years 70k and 6k.

It takes more than linguistics to make a history. It also takes archaeology and local folklore.
From that long ago... good luck with that.
Lord of the Rings: And History became Legend and Legend became Myth. And Myth gets tossed out like the baby with the bathwater... with nothing to replace it... leaving a void which is filled... usually, by somebody else's idea of history.

I found the article interesting, you found it annoying. I find your response off topic.

Have a great day.

 

[Ligurian]

However the study, rather than being a study, sensuo stricto, is a hypothesis based upon the life work of a single researcher, published in book form. (i.e. no peer review.) Now it appears that the author, George Poulos, is a greatly experienced and respected researcher, however, the scores, or hundreds of researchers that provide the material in the rest of the literature on the subject support much earlier origins for speech and language.

It does not follow that one person is wrong just because hundreds hold a different view, but . . . .(tens of) thousands of multi-dsciplinary, peer reviewed research papers versus a book publication by an individual. A bit shaky, perhaps.

And I did think it odd that in a wikipedia list of around 750 noted linguists, Poulos was noticeably absent. OK, it's only wikipedia. Still, 750 notable linguists and George is a no-show. More relevant is the absence of the work in google.scholar, or any citations for it.

On balance I am left decidely lukewarm on the significance of the work.

Tracking the source, priceless.

So... hypotheses based on some researchers' theories.
I thought most people linked to an article they're quoting... my bad.
I don't think it's at all likely that the failed-Out-of-Africa construct is marginally viable.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't believe in Black Vikings, either.

---edit to stay on topic---

I found the article interesting, you found it annoying. I find your response off topic.

Point taken... how 'bout now?

 

[Frank Robert]

Tracking the source, priceless.





Point taken... how 'bout now?

Criticizing the article is not a problem. There are many theories for The Origins of Language:

It is an intriguing question, to which we may never have a complete answer: How did we get from animal vocalization (barks, howls, calls...) to human language?​

​

There are many theories about the origins of language. Many of these have traditional amusing names (invented by Max Müller and George Romanes a century ago ...​

​

 

[Ligurian]

Criticizing the article is not a problem. There are many theories for The Origins of Language:

It is an intriguing question, to which we may never have a complete answer: How did we get from animal vocalization (barks, howls, calls...) to human language?​

​

There are many theories about the origins of language. Many of these have traditional amusing names (invented by Max Müller and George Romanes a century ago ...​

​

Language theories, all by themselves, don't seem to be much more than guesswork.

Archaeology and Language, by Colin Renfrew is about the so-called IE homeland... which I don't buy into, these days. All I got out of that book is Anatolia... where one might expect to see Bactria or Margiana... which only reminds me that I need to sell that book.
Pokorny makes my eyes bleed. Maybe one would have to be indoctrinated at college to give it more than a passing glance. Whenever I hear the phrase "scholars believe", I want to speak to their professor... or rather the writer du jour, and get it straight from the horse's mouth. But since they're all basing their books on the books before them... I'm back to my original statement.

 

[Gene2memE]

The origin of language, and the whens, wheres and hows of its development, are likely something that will never be fully resolved. The kind of evidence we'd need to reach definitive conclusions likely doesn't exist (not to mention all the arguing over what exactly constitutes a 'language').

Most estimates are based on the anatomy of human and human ancestor fossils that have been discovered. These suggest that humans had the capacity to make the sounds we'd recognise as language from as early as 300,000 years ago, with a cluster of estimates around 200,000 to 160,000 ago and another in the 80,000 to 50,000 years ago range (largely in an overlap with the appearance of anatomically modern humans and behaviourally modern humans, respectively).

However, there are a WIDE variety of estimates. Some researchers believe that ancient human ancestors such as Homo Neanderthals were capable of language as far back as 800,000 years ago. Other push this back even further, with some suggesting that earlier hominids such as homo erectus may have been capable of language upwards of 2 million years ago.

Then there are a few researchers that suggest a more recent development. Some linguistics experts suggest that while our ancestors were capable of producing basic sounds, 'language' that is more complex than anything seen elsewhere in the animal kingdom didn't really come around until 60,000 to 40,000 years ago, or even younger than that.

Personally, I tend to line up with the notion that language had a slow rather than rapid onset and it developed concurrently with the shift in human physiology from 'robust' to 'gracile'. That was a process that started a little over 320,000 years ago and wasn't completed until roughly 70-60,000 years ago. Once language was developed, it was another tool that helped human's to survive and procreate, and then it spread to the rest of the world with the most recent migratory 'pulse' out of Africa.

 

[Frank Robert]

Language theories, all by themselves, don't seem to be much more than guesswork.

Archaeology and Language, by Colin Renfrew is about the so-called IE homeland... which I don't buy into, these days. All I got out of that book is Anatolia... where one might expect to see Bactria or Margiana... which only reminds me that I need to sell that book.
Pokorny makes my eyes bleed. Maybe one would have to be indoctrinated at college to give it more than a passing glance. Whenever I hear the phrase "scholars believe", I want to speak to their professor... or rather the writer du jour, and get it straight from the horse's mouth. But since they're all basing their books on the books before them... I'm back to my original statement.

You don't need to buy into studies to find there theories interesting or provocative. If you are not interested in scholar or academic studies you read comic books.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't need to buy into studies to find there theories interesting or provocative. If you are not interested in scholar or academic studies you read comic books.

QV please:

I Have Found Both The Missing Link And Abiogenesis

 

[Ligurian]

You don't need to buy into studies to find there theories interesting or provocative.
If you are not interested in scholar or academic studies you read comic books.

Third Option: You don't let your enemies and/or people you don't know write your history for you.

 

[Frank Robert]

Third Option: You don't let your enemies and/or people you don't know write your history for you.

I let the historians write about history as was only sharing what I though was an interesting story, sorry that it upset you.

 

[Ligurian]

I'm sorry that you think I was upset.