Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TheOneWhoDings t1_iv3pog3 wrote

It is possible that H. erectus or other archaic humans could talk, but there is no direct evidence to support this. It is possible that they had a general language that they used to communicate cross-species, but again, there is no direct evidence to support this. The main theory is that H. erectus and other archaic humans had a form of proto-language that was used to communicate basic ideas and concepts, like "food" or "danger", but it is not clear if this proto-language was capable of conveying more complex ideas.

14

Most-Ant2788 t1_iv90tsc wrote

Do you think it's possible they used a sort of sign language?

2

TheOneWhoDings t1_iv93ixn wrote

It is possible that H. erectus or other archaic humans used a form of sign language, but there is no direct evidence to support this. However, it's interesting to note that H. erectus fossils have been found with deformities that could have made it difficult for them to use conventional forms of communication, like speech or facial expressions. This has led some scientists to suggest that they may have developed a form of sign language to compensate for their limited ability to communicate verbally or non-verbally.

1

4the1st t1_iv58rp7 wrote

See: A Homo Erectus Hyoid Bone: Possible Implications for the Origin of the Human Capability for Speech

Structure suggests that, "some similarities to non-humans and pre-human genera, suggesting that the morphological basis for human speech didn't arise in Homo erectus."

6