07/13/23

Looking at Lesley Newson and Peter Richerson’s Book (2021) “A Story of Us” (Part 13 of 16)

0111 So, what have Newson and Richerson missed?

Well, as far as Razie Mah’s, The Human Niche, is concerned, I should turn the question around and ask, “What does their book have to offer?”

0112 Here is the fourth depiction of the authors’ approach, using the three-level interscope.

0113 The authors’ approach may be rendered as a purely relational structure. Key terms in their discussion are on display in every slot in the three-level interscope. Every slot is occupied. Particular importance is given to category-crossing terms.

0114 Because completed three-level interscopes are inherently satisfying, the authors various arguments deliver a feeling that they all come together into a coherent whole.

This is an implicit abstraction.

This book holds together like a well-performed orchestration.

0115 Not unsurprisingly, Razie Mah proposes that the three-level interscope may serve as a purely relational model for langue, the mental system of differences that relates to parole (expressed as hand-talk, hand-speech talk or speech-alone talk). One human may engage in word-gestures (hand talk) or vocal utterances (speech talk) as parole, but all conversants fill in the blanks of the same relational structure, the three-level interscope that is langue.

See Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2017) Why Only Us?, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0116 But, is the above interscope correct?

No and yes.

No, examine the first column in approach 4. The virtual nested form in the realm of normal context does not hold together. Does the normal context of natural selection_3a virtually bring the actuality of sociality_3b into relation with the potential of body development_3a? Uh, what am I saying? Yes, it seems to hold together.

That is one beauty of filled-in three-level interscopes. Even when the interscope is somewhat questionable, the satisfaction gained from having each element occupied is profound. This is what humans evolved to do. Newson and Richerson, as professional anthropologists, have (perhaps unintentionally) illustrated one of humanity’s hidden evolved traits. It is hidden, because anthropologists, pretending to be scientists, rather than rational inquirers, seek out and promote only material and instrumental causation.

0117 Another hidden gem within their approach is pictured in red in the following diagram.

0118 The dyad, body [and] mind_2b, encompasses both social interactions [stimulate] hormonal responses_2b and culture [informs] brains_2b. The body_2b concerns signals. The mind_2b concerns signs.

0119 To me, this gem touches base with the notion that hominins adapt to a wider and wider variety of social interactionsin terms of both cathexis and cognition. Plus, this gem also reminds us that culture consists in information, defined as both signs and sign-processes. Finally, this gem re-emerges in our current Lebenswelt as one of the evocative distinctions realized from many civilized traditions. In the Greek and Roman and then Christian traditions, the normal context of spirit₃ brings the actuality of mind [and] body₂ into relation with the possibilities inherent in a soul₁.

0120 This brings me to the stair and step pattern that transports the reader from the realness of genes_2a to the potential of reproductive success_1c. The stairs coincide with the author’s category-crossing imputations in the terms, “phenotype” and “adaptation”. The steps go either from potential to actuality or from actuality to potential.

Follow the green arrows in the following figure.

0121 While I may be disappointed that the authors do not identify sign-processing as a key feature of the human niche, I am not disappointed in the authors painting in all the elements of a three-level interscope with features of their story about us. If, as noted earlier (point 0115), the three-level interscope gives us insight into the nature of langue, then their success in this regard presents the reader with a work of art, as well as a work about science.

Indeed, the authors offer a new look at human evolution.

07/12/23

Looking at Lesley Newson and Peter Richerson’s Book (2021) “A Story of Us” (Part 14 of 16)

0122 Chapter seven, titled “Building Today’s World”, starts with humans 10,000 years ago. The current interglacial starts. Sea-levels rise.

Beliefs and rituals_2c are among the social tools_1b, the traits_2c that train body and mind_2b.

Here is a picture.

0123 It seems as if these social tools_1b emerge from (and situate) the functionality and plasticity of our enormous brains_1a.

What are humans thinking?

Perhaps, with this topsy-turvy climate, we should be kind to strangers.

Or, maybe we should fight the ones who are not like us to the death.

These thoughts may be conveyed using hand-speech talk.

0124 Unfortunately, the authors’ interludes depict speech-alone talk in action. Explicit abstractions, such as “marriage” and “wealth” are possible in speech-alone talk. They are not so easy to articulate in hand-speech talk. The semiotics of hand talk are grounded in icons and indexes. What is there to picture or point to?

0126 What is it like when things that can be imaged and indicated ground hand-speech talk words?

It is like a referent demands to be signified by its own word-gesture. All that is required is the sensible construction of a natural sign-relation.

Plus, referents that obviously demand implicit abstraction may simultaneously demand social construction. For example, the hand-talk term, FIRE (INSIDE) BULL, makes no sense at all. A fire inside a bull? But, when that fire goes out and the bull is dead, then the implicit abstraction is clear.

Today, I can explicitly articulate the implicit abstraction.

BULL has mind [and] body₂.

FIRE is like spirit₃ and soul₁.

INSIDE is a triadic relation.

0127 Here is a picture.

Such is the nature of implicit abstraction in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

07/11/23

Looking at Lesley Newson and Peter Richerson’s Book (2021) “A Story of Us” (Part 15 of 16)

0128 The authors warn the reader. There is no “progress” to evolution. But, there are trends.

There is no “progress” for creatures that make their living within one ecology and one environment. Why? Ecologies and environments are always changing.

But, what of a genus whose ultimate niche is the potential of triadic relations?

And, what if signs are triadic relations?

Every ecology and environment is perfused with signs.

Plus, once the southern apes are on their feet, their hands are free for talking.

Then, southern apes hand-talk while cooperating with one another on team activities.

Culture is perfused with signs.

0129 The authors offer another warning. Runaway natural selection can occur. Consider the utter uselessness of the beautiful and eye-catching tail of the male peacock. Yes, it is useless except for one problem. The female peacocks are impressed by big, beautiful, eye-catching displays.

Is the runaway character of talk similar to the runaway character of the peacock’s tail… or should I say?… the peacock hen’s expectations.

0130 Speech is added as adornment to hand talk at the start of our own species, Homo sapiens. Perhaps, sexual selection is involved. Perhaps not. Why? The adornment of speech adds a strange semiotic ingredient, a spice, so to speak, to the semiotics of hand talk. Without letting go of the iconic and indexal character of hand talk, speech adds a symbolic richness, as if the gestural words are distinct from one another, not because of habit, but because they are wrapped in distinct envelopes of formant frequencies. Each hand talk word images and indicates a referent that can be pictured or pointed to. But, the addition of speech as an adornment adds a situational expression.

0131 A situational expression?

Sort of like the tail of the male peacock?

Uh oh, is this the start of runaway natural selection?

0132 What happens to humans during the Late Paleolithic, the Epipaleolithic and the Early and the (start of) Developed Neolithic?

Are the archaeological sites of Goblecki Tepe, Neolithic Jericho, Catal Huyuk and Stonehenge dramatic achievements of hand-speech talking cultures?

What is notable about all these sites?

These sites belong to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

These cultures never clearly develop unconstrained social complexity. Rather, these cultures seem to evaporate as civilization appears in Mesopotamia, then Egypt, then India, and then China.

0133 Towards the end of chapter seven, the authors introduce topics that apply to our current Lebenswelt.

If the authors had been familiar with Razie Mah’s masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall (or at least, the simple proposal offered in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace), then they would have heard that our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0134 There is a twist in human evolution.

Here is a picture.

07/10/23

Looking at Lesley Newson and Peter Richerson’s Book (2021) “A Story of Us” (Part 16 of 16)

0135 Chapter eight brings the reader to modern times.

What has the first singularity wrought?

Need a visual?

Newson presents a photograph (Figure 8.1) of a steampunk skull cyborg sculpture.

Here is an example of how speech-alone talk operates.

Unlike hand-speech talk, speech-alone talk permits explicit abstraction. In this sculpture, a resin-based human skull is explicitly extruded… oh, I meant to say… abstracted and converted into the foundation of what appears to be an audio-headphone machine. Body (skull) and mind (machine) fuse into a monstrosity.

0136 What are the authors not saying?

They do not say that this work of art initiates implicit abstraction. An innate relational structure for sensible constructiontells the viewer that social construction is needed. I know this from my visceral reaction to the photograph.

(See Razie Mah’s Comments on Religious Experience (1985) by Wayne Proudfoot, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.)

0137 Here is a picture of the failing sensible construction.

0138 This disturbing work of art characterizes modernity. Newson and Richerson tell a story in two interludes. Culture, originally defined as “shared information”, is now disorienting. The consequences? Throughout the world, fertility declines. Only local cultures, consciously avoiding modern urban cities, now have numerous children.

Surely, today, there are enough people.

The problem is that children are becoming more and more rare.

0139 Is this a problem of sign-processing? Does today’s “information” trade “something that adorns us” for children? Is there a foundational difficulty with speech-alone talk? What happens when words no longer picture or point to their referents, as they once did in hand-speech (and hand) talk? What happens when we construct artifacts in order to validate our spoken words? What happens when the artifacts fail to deliver?

These types of questions are raised in Razie Mah’s masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0140 All the words that we use today in public discourse seem to have two meanings: a traditional one and a new-fangled technical one.

Need an example?

Consider the new-fangled, yet technical terms, “phenotype” and “adaptation”, in the following figure.

Compare that to the simpler scientific use of the terms in points 34 through 38.

0142 The new-fangled terms cross categorical levels within a complete three-level interscope. The aesthetics of such conjunctions make this book very attractive.

The old-fashioned scientific terms cannot be reconciled. Adaptations associate to the discipline of natural history. Phenotypes associate to the discipline of genetics. Each biological discipline would seem to be independent except for one awkward fact. Both sciences deal with a single entity, which one may call an individual, a species or a genus.

0143 In the epilogue, the authors proclaim (more or less), “Let us abandon the idea of ‘human nature’.”

Why?

“Human nature” is just a spoken term. The traditional meaning loads the term with political messages and connotes the presence of immutability. The new-fangled meaning looks at the term in the same way that a traditionalist gazes upon a steampunk cyborg sculpture. Surely, there is something wrong with this term.

Here is how the category-based nested form, which may be an innate cognitive principle for humans, understands how to define the term, “human nature.

0144 Perhaps, abandoning the idea of “human nature” will free us from the notion that our gut feelings, our hearts, and our minds can help us mate and raise a family.

But, abandoning “human nature” would leave us open to cultural influences.

0145 Cultural influences?

Psychological researchers investigate how social interactions [stimulate] hormonal responses and how culture [informs] brains. Do these actualities sound vaguely familiar? The corporate sponsors of these psychological researchers want to learn how to make their products more addicting and more real that they otherwise would be.

Ah yes, cultural influences need brains to inform.

0146 Consider the three-level interscope that guides the authors. The beauty of their intuition is that a completed three-level interscope is inherently intellectually satisfying. Satisfaction gives a feeling of completeness and accomplishment. The reader says, “Yes, here is a story about us. Here is a new look at human evolution.” The reader cannot put spoken words to the feeling that the book provides. Here is the arc of human evolution and history, in content, in situation and in perspective.

0147 These comments add value to Newson and Richerson’s book by introducing an option that the authors do not know. Humans adapt to sign-processing. Yes, human evolution manifests culture-gene co-evolution. But, the human niche is the potential of triadic relations, such as signs, mediations, judgments and category-based nested forms.

Surely, this book is somewhat addicting. Surely, this production seems more real than it otherwise would be. Why? The authors offer a new look at human evolution. So what if the new look is in terms of style, rather than substance. The authors offer something that other books on human evolution do not.

They offer acts of imagination.

06/30/23

Looking at Ian Hodder’s Book (2018) “Where Are We Heading?” (Part 1 of 15)

0001 Consider the title of archaeologist Ian Hodder’s recent book.

What is the question really asking?

Are we heading somewhere?

0002 The problem?

Who would purchase a book with an honest title, such as, “Are We Heading Somewhere?: The Evolution of Humans and Things”?

Everyone knows where we are going.

We are going to hell.

0003 So, maybe my first question concerns what Hodder’s titular question is really asking.

For my second question, I consider Hodder’s subtitle and ask, “Is there directionality to human evolution?”

A consensus among general biologists tells us, “Evolution has no direction, because direction implies an overall teleology or purpose.”

But, this is not the case.

0004 Why is it not the case?

An answer can be found in a series by Razie Mah, titled, A Course on Evolution and Thomism, available at smashwords and other e-book venues. This course includes Speculations on Thomism and Evolution and Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome.

0005 Here is a quick summary.

The normal context of natural selection_3b brings the actuality of adaptations_2b into relation with a niche_1b.

Plus, a niche_1b is the potential of an actuality_2a independent of the adapting species.

In order to digest this statement, consult Razie Mah’s A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0006 Here is a picture of the quick summary.

0007 What is a niche_1b?

A situation-level niche_1b is the potential of a content-level actuality independent of the adapting species_2a.

0008 Does that mean that biological evolution has direction?

0009 On the one hand, biologists confuse everyone with their declaration that evolution has no direction. For living systems, natural selection_3b encourages adaptations_2b in response to a variety of proximate niches_1a, which are actualities, more or less independent of the adapting species_2a. There is no telling which proximate niche_1b will turn out to be decisive. Most likely, the proximate niche_1b is the potential of an actuality_2a that directly benefits or challenges the creature’s reproductive success_2b.

Plus, there are various surprises, like a huge meteor striking the planet Earth, which changes all proximate niches so dramatically that mass extinctions occur. So, biological evolution, on a grand scale, appears to play out as a contest to adapt to proximate niches, which are themselves contingent on planetary conditions.

0010 On the other hand, the above diagram shows that biological adaptations are directional. They are teleological. There is an actuality_2a, independent of the adapting species that either encourages or inhibits reproductive success_1b. Genetic recombinations will throw up a variations among a species’ phenotypes. Some of these phenotypic variations will prove more successful than others at exploiting the actuality_2a or avoiding the actuality_2a. Biologists label this eventuality, “differential reproductive success”.

0011 Adaptations_2b reveal that the niche_1b is… to use a theological term… teleological. The niche_1b is the potential that becomes manifest when a biologist reflects upon the adaptations of a particular species_2b in the normal context of natural selection_3b. The niche is like a boulder in a river than causes water to flow around it. The rock is an independent actuality. The river adapts.

0012 Does that mean that biological evolution has a direction?

In the same way that a river of water running to the sea has a direction?

0013 The difference between a river of water and the river of life concerns altitude. Water runs downhill. When it gets to the sea, its niche is exhausted. Life runs uphill. It converts a huge amount of energy (think of water running downhill) into a little amount of energy that the organism can use (think of a waterwheel grinding grains of wheat into flour). Consequently, life is precarious. Death is ubiquitous.

So, a niche_1b is all about staying alive.

0014 Actualities independent of the adapting species_2a pose opportunities and hazards. These have the potential to constitute niches_1b. A niche_1b is relevant enough to increase the reproductive success of some in the adapting species, as opposed to others, in the normal context of natural selection_3b. The successful ones adapt_2a to their niche_1b. Life is always climbing uphill. Death is tumbling down.

0015 So, where are we heading?

Ian Hodder suggests an answer.

Things can keep us alive. So, it behooves our ancestors, the hominins, as well as ourselves, the humans, to attend to the things that keep us alive.

He calls this adaptation: “entanglement”.

06/29/23

Looking at Ian Hodder’s Book (2018) “Where Are We Heading?” (Part 2 of 15)

0016 Hodder’s desires to extend entanglement theory to all of biological evolution.

Am I already there?

The concept of the niche_1b entangles the adapting species_2b with independent actualities_2a (that is, things_2a).

Hominins are only doing what biological evolution has been doing for a long time.

But there is a difference.

Unlike most other species, where the actuality independent of the adapting species is a thing or state of things, our species adapts into a purely relational niche. Such is the bold hypothesis of Razie Mah’s masterwork, The Human Niche,available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0017 Dr. Hodder’s theory of entanglement starts with a thing. A thing is a content-level actuality.

Here is a picture.

0018 Entanglement starts with an actuality that is independent of people. Only one slot is occupied in the initial configuration. The others remain either empty or nascent. “Nascent” means “yet to be manifested”.

0019 For an example, let me consider a detail about the archaeological excavation that Dr. Hodder supervised (and is, no doubt, still involved), Catal Hoyuk in Anatolia.

The detail_2a is riverbed clay. This clay_2a has the potential to be used as construction material for the walls of houses in the Neolithic settlement_1b. This potential_1b goes onto the situation-level, and awakens a corresponding normal context_3band actuality_2b.

0020 Here is a picture. The lighter colors denote “awakening” as well as emptiness.

0021 Awakening? Emptiness?

The situation-level normal context_3b is obvious to the archaeologist. Shelter is an adaptation_2b to a proximate human niche_1b. Humans need shelter to protect themselves from all sorts of dangers_2a, especially at night. As such, shelters are sensible constructions.

0022 Sensible construction?

For some background concerning this topic, consult Razie Mah’s A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0023 Dr. Hodder awakens to the sensible construction implicit in entanglement.

This is the entanglement that Hodder wants to convey. Things become useful. Then, humans end up entangled with useful things.

06/28/23

Looking at Ian Hodder’s Book (2018) “Where Are We Heading?” (Part 3 of 15)

0024 Here is a picture of Hodder’s general theory of entanglement.

0025 Here is a diagram of the relational structure of biological adaptation.

0026 Notice any similarities?

Does this summarize Hodder’s book?

Yes, it does, because Hodder, as a scientist, limits his vision to sensible construction.

No, it does not, because the two diagrams are different, even though they appear remarkably similar.

0027 There are two actualities.

Things_2a occupy the slot for actuality_2a in the content-level of both two-level interscopes.

The ways that people use things and take care of them_2b occupies the slot for actuality_2b on the situation-level, for the normal context of entanglement_3b.

Biological adaptations_2b occupies the slot for actuallity_2b on the situation level, for the normal context of natural selection_2b.

0028 What does that imply?

The logics of normal contexts₃ include exclusion, complementarity and alignment. I can rule out the first and the third options, leaving me with the second.

Entanglement_2b complements natural selection_2b.

Similarly, the potential ‘uses of things’_1b complements the biological concept of niche_1b.

0029 Where are we heading?

Are we heading to the realization that people’s use of things, as well as their care for things_2b, complements the biological notion of adaptation_2b?

Are we are heading to an awareness that what Hodder calls “entanglement”_3b may be an adaptation_2b into the human niche_1b?

If the answers are “yes”, then perhaps the concept of biological adaptation_2b relies on (and is therefore, formatted by) our innate capacity for using and caring for things_2b.

0030 Does Darwin pick up on that?

What do natural selection and selective breeding by humans have in common?

06/27/23

Looking at Ian Hodder’s Book (2018) “Where Are We Heading?” (Part 4 of 15)

0031 Let me return to the example.

What is the problem with the following figure?

0032 The Neolithic houses at Catal Hoyuk are more than shelters. They are more than sensible construction. They are also social constructions.

0033 What is a social construction?

Please note A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0034 Is there an obvious social construction that goes with the walls of a house?

Yes, the house_2b is a home_2c.

0035 A home_2c puts a house_2b into perspective.

One of the difficulties facing archaeologists at Catal Hoyuk involves the imagination.

The closely packed houses_2b are obviously homes_2c, because people live in them. The inhabitants decorate various rooms. They post the skulls of wild cows on their walls. Are they trophies? Or, are they symbols of divinity? The archaeologist does not know.

Even worse, archaeologists do not know whether the people of Catal Hoyuk ideated any distinction between a trophy or a divinity.

My guess is that they did not.

0036 How so?

Consult the simple The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace and the complex An Archaeology of the Fall, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0037 My suspicion is that the people of Catal Hoyuk practice hand-speech talk, rather than speech-alone talk. In hand speech talk, I cannot picture or point to the label, “home”_2c. If I picture or point to anything, it would be the house_2b.

Here is a thought experiment.

Imagine that I live in Catal Hoyuk.

Even though hand-speech talk cannot label the word, “home”, I can implicitly commit to the conviction that my house_2b is my home_2c. After all, I use riverbed clay_2a to repair the walls of my house_2b. I live there.

My house_2b is implicitly my home_2c, but I cannot explicitly articulate that conclusion, because hand-speech talk only can image and indicate “house”_2b.

0038 Hodder does not know this, because the professor has not encountered the hypothesis of the first singularity.

The perspective level can evolve as an adaptation, but it cannot be explicitly abstracted. Instead, it is implicitly abstracted.

See Razie Mah’s e-book, A Primer on Implicit and Explicit Abstraction.

0039 The following diagram places a fine mesh underneath the elements of the perspective level, indicating that this level can adapt to the realness of houses_2b, without explicit abstraction of the perspective-level elements. What we call belonging_3c, home_2c and settlement_1c are explicit abstractions that veil the fact that our capacity to “sense” these elements is innate.

0040 Today, with speech-alone talk, I say, “I am going home.”

At Catal Hoyuk, with hand-speech talk, I manual-brachial gesture, “I-GO (point in direction of) HOUSE.”

06/26/23

Looking at Ian Hodder’s Book (2018) “Where Are We Heading?” (Part 5 of 15)

0041 Clearly, Hodder’s theory of entanglement requires embellishment. Sensible construction alone will not do. Social construction is another facet of entanglement. In the houses of Catal Hoyuk, no one ever uses the terms, “belonging”_3c, “home”_2c or “reside”_1c. Instead, they know the meanings, the presences and the messages of these terms in their hearts. They are habits of being.

What is it like to dwell in a living world where gesture-words are defined by things and events that one can picture or point to?

0042 Here is another application of Hodder’s sensible theory of entanglement.

Most likely, each filled-in element has corresponding manual-brachial gesture-words.

During the epipaleolithic, humans sow an original wild wheat on newly exposed riverbeds on the edges of streams. Why? Well, they observe that the riverbeds are nice little plots of land, free of weeds, that can be used to grow a preferred brand of grass. Why sow grass? There are lots of practical uses for grass, including mixing with clay to make stucco for houses and tinder for lighting fires.

0043 That is just the start.

The grass responds with an adaptation honoring the seeds that the humans sow. Human habits increase the potential for robust rachis, rather than delicate rachis. Grass with delicate rachis drop their seeds when humans cut the stalk. Stalks with robust rachis retain their seeds for humans to thresh and use again. Plus, they are edible. Put some in a pot with milk and place the pot in the fire for a while and the result is a delicious and teeth-rotting mush.

0044 Today’s technical name for the new variety is “emmer wheat”. During the early Neolithic, emmer wheat becomes common throughout southwest Asia. Mush gets added to the menu. But, soon enough, new culinary adaptations arise, including bread and beer.

06/23/23

Looking at Ian Hodder’s Book (2018) “Where Are We Heading?” (Part 6 of 15)

0045 Here is the application of Hodder’s sensible theory with respect to emmer wheat_2a as a thing_2a. In human-thing dependency, processing food_2b virtually situates emmer wheat_2a. Humans_2b depend on things_2a. I call this H_2b-T_2adependence.

0046 Chapters four (“Humans and Things”), five (“Webs of Dependencies”), six (“The Generation of Change”) and seven (“Path Dependency and Two Forms of Dependencies”) fill in details.

0047 For example, the potential of ‘the growing, harvesting and threshing’_1b of emmer wheat_2a designates a human-thing (HT) dependency.

One could say that the biological adaptations occurring in the wheat designate a thing-human (TH) dependency. But, a more obvious designation of thing-human dependency are the tools that were invented in order accomplish specific tasks, including baskets for holding seeds and clay pots for cooking mush. These tool-things would not exist were it not for humans.

0048 For example, cutting grass stalks is one of the tasks in processing food_2b from emmer wheat_2a. This task_2b situates a content-level nested form in such a manner as to project an artifact_2a into the slot for thing_2a. That artifact is a stone sickle_2a. Some things_2a depend on humans_2b. I call this T_2a-H_2b dependence.

0049 On top of that, there is a subsidiary of H_2b-T_2a dependence that associates to the desirability of the tool_1b for its particular task_2b. Certain tools work better than others. A stone sickle made of obsidian is better than one made of granite. The obsidian from a volcano near Catal Hoyuk_2a makes great tools, not only sickles, but knives and arrowheads. This obsidian is found throughout the ancient Near East, showing evidence for down-the-line trading during the early Neolithic.

0050 I call this T_2b-T_2a dependency.

0051 Hodder proposes one more dependency. To me, this dependency is unlike the three types covered so far. But, Hodder does not see that this additional dependency is unlike the rest. I wonder whether there is evidence of it to be found in the archaeological site of Catal Hoyuk.