Neanderthal News

[Beagle]

Anyone ever read "The Naked Ape"?

By Desmond Morris. Good book. I think I was in my mid-twenties when I read it.

Along with the human skins that you hang up, don't forget the skeletons. The point is further made.

As anyone here can tell you, I have always been a proponent of HN assimilation with HS. And there are others - you are not alone.

The assimilation, in my view, began in the Levant, when both humans lived side by side for 20,000 yrs. That ended in 95,000 BC, and on that occassion, it was HS that "vanished". Erik Trinkaus has found fossil evidence in their bones of hybridization there in the Levant. Skhul cave is one example.

I've never subscribed to the thinking that HN was inferior in any way. His brain was bigger, and his technology was adapted to his environment. As he begins to "disappear" from the world stage. more and more instances of hybridization are found, primarily by Trinkaus.

It's not hard to see that evidence, there are just not many people looking for it.

[daybrown]

I suspect that Homo Neanderthalis had more *instinctive* knowledge. He didnt havta think how to knap a point. It was written in his brain, and because it was, he kept making the same design for millennia.

The ice ages continually kicked his ass out of most of Europe. But he came back so many times that he developed a dynamic mapping ability which is seen in the success his descendants have had with chess.

This is in sharp contrast to the New Guinea highlander, who Diamond says has been living in the same place for over 20,000 years. Which sounds like the world record. I expect they dont havta think about where they are. The terrain, which has not changed, is written in a static map in their brains.

New maps, like algebra, present real problems.

[Beagle]

Indeed, HN would have had excellent spatial skills but he still had to do what evry Hunter Gatherer does - follow his food. If it was warm enough for his giant prey to remain in Northern Europe, he could and would also. Along with the wolves - his only competitor for most of his time.

When the animals migrated south, into the levant, and elsewhere, so did he. There is even a Neanderthal kill site near Alexandria, Egypt.

When his prey couldn't find grass and foliage, they followed their food south. It's a cycle as old as Earth.

[Digit]

That's how I saw it Cog.

[Digit]

Tool making as a means of demonstrating brain power died in Level 2 (3?) at Olduvai Beag. I can look up the details if you want them but a young knapper found that the, apparently, crude tools that were later in sequence could be made very quickly and could be sharpened and that the more 'refined' ones took longer to make and were a throw away item.

[Beagle]

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/arc ... _2007.html

Slimak and Giraud report Comptes Rendus Palevol that a small proportion (<1%) of artifacts from the Mousterian of Champ Grand, in central France, come from distances over 250 km away. That long-distance transport is rare at the site, but is even more rarely observed in assessments of Mousterian assemblages.

Out of 10 artifacts with distant sources, six are from far to the north of the site (in the Loire Valley and Paris Basin) while two are from equivalent distances to the south. The site itself is in the Rhône drainage, leading the authors to conclude that the long-distance transport demonstrates interaction of peoples between at least the Loire and Rhône valleys.

Well, so much for the notion that Neaderthal lived in small isolated pockets.

[Rokcet Scientist]

But [Homo Neanderthalis] came back so many times that he developed a dynamic mapping ability which is seen in the success his descendants have had with chess.

Huh? Russian Jews are really HN hybrids?

[Digit]

Russian Jews are really HN hybrids?

Always new there was something different about me, now where did I leave that club?

[Minimalist]

Do you play chess?

[Digit]

Yes, very badly.

[Mayonaze]

[/quote]Well, so much for the notion that Neaderthal lived in small isolated pockets.[/quote]

Any chance they were following migratory game?

[Minimalist]

Sure. Hard to imagine they could go that far without intruding on to another group's territory, though.

[Barracuda]

Thanks, Beag!

It is good to know I am not alone!

[Mayonaze]

Sure. Hard to imagine they could go that far without intruding on to another group's territory, though.

What better reason to trade, then. If you're going to get something, you have to give something - or fight. Fighting is risky.

[Manystones]

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/arc ... _2007.html

Slimak and Giraud report Comptes Rendus Palevol that a small proportion (<1%) of artifacts from the Mousterian of Champ Grand, in central France, come from distances over 250 km away. That long-distance transport is rare at the site, but is even more rarely observed in assessments of Mousterian assemblages.

Out of 10 artifacts with distant sources, six are from far to the north of the site (in the Loire Valley and Paris Basin) while two are from equivalent distances to the south. The site itself is in the Rhône drainage, leading the authors to conclude that the long-distance transport demonstrates interaction of peoples between at least the Loire and Rhône valleys.

Well, so much for the notion that Neaderthal lived in small isolated pockets.

I wouldn't take too much from this... it may demonstrate transportation between the Loire and Rhône but not much more.

it seems pertinent to quote Bednarik (again) here although the methodology applies equally well elsewhere on this forum;

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/10-1edit.html

Any analytical process is based on assessing crucial denominators, and on seeking to find among them the one that is crucial in defining the category in question. Because in mathematics, geometry and physics we seem to be able to perceive valid taxonomies, the most notable being the periodic chart of elements, we tend to assume that such taxonomies should also exist elsewhere. However, they are not as clear-cut in the biological sciences, and in the social sciences they are practically arbitrary. In archaeology, specifically, most CCDs used in interpretation appear to be false, mostly because the massive importance of taphonomic logic is often not taken into account. Most models in archaeology seem to be based on misunderstanding the role of the evidence. To illustrate again with an example, consider the global distribution of hominid remains. Many archaeologists seem to think it reflects in some way regions of hominid occupation, even of population densities. Nothing could be further from the truth, which is that these are almost random localities that reflect primarily the suitable sedimentary preservation conditions and the magnitude of relevant research efforts. The distribution of hominid find sites tells us very little about the geographical extent of the species, it indicates the extent of the areas where the fossils could manage to survive and where they were found and correctly identified. We can generalise that the distributional and statistical characteristics of most types of archaeological evidence are practically irrelevant to interpretation. Essentially this is because archaeology cannot produce valid random samples of any kind of evidence, and no such evidence can be expected to correctly reflect any historical variable. Therefore we have no correctly measured variable, or common denominator, and on top of that we probably are not capable of selecting among the available common denominators the one that is crucial in defining the category of evidence.