Neanderthal News

[Rokcet Scientist]

Maybe so, but it's fun to speculate, no?

Better than football.

[Beagle]

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

Thanks Richard. At the moment that is all that it demonstrates. Hopefully other evidence will be sought by checking the origin of the other Mousterian tools. Like Mayo, my first reaction to the article was that it showed evidence of a relatively local trade network.

As much as I like Bednarik, I don't think that quote really applies in this case.

[Manystones]

As much as I like Bednarik, I don't think that quote really applies in this case.

I beg to differ, statistical analysis of taphonomic remanants is meaningless. Further the quote is apt for the entire thread since 99% of the theories regarding evolution are based on interpretations of the skeletal remains which are subject to taphonomic processes. Failure to recognise the effect of taphonomy is a failure to understand the precarious and unsubstantiated nature of most "archaeological research". Realisation of this fundamental provides the remit to speculate freely.

The relevance of 10 out of 1000 artifacts to Neanderthal patterns of distribution is lost on me.

[Digit]

What it comes down to of course is trying to establish population densities, movements and life style in NA by counting and examining wrecked autos.
Difficult, but you use what you have.
Unfortunately often too much faith is put in limited info.

[Beagle]

Richard, I only take issue with the fact that taphony concerns itself with
organic remains. It's of little use in lithic analysis. And I'm not trying to make a larger case than this example warrants, just having a little levity at the expense of orthodoxy.

[Gary Svindal]

Beagle said: " Like Mayo, my first reaction to the article was that it showed evidence of a relatively local trade network."

Most probably family related tribes, who would visit back and forth with presents and trade items. The Muscogee Tribes of the Southeast would send an expedition to other family related tribes as far away as the Seneca Nation near the Great Lakes. The expeditions would be announced well in advance and take any of the people from the associated tribes who wished to make the trip, along with many young maidens and warriors looking for mates. They would winter over and return with any Seneca people wishing to winter over with the Muscogee, and without those who found mates among the Seneca or who wanted to stay. It seems logical to believe this practice was not exclusive to NA.

[daybrown]

That report about the Seneca & Muscogee makes sense to me Gary, but according to Doug Weller, is off topic on an archeology forum. Maybe we need a new term to discuss the *application* of insights from other fields to the understanding of why we find artifacts where we do.

I personally dont have a problem with this broader usage, since without it, the funding of archaeological expeditions would be diddly.

[Beagle]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 101018.htm

For 150 years, scientists have tried to decipher why Neanderthal skulls are different from those of modern humans," Weaver said. "Most accounts have emphasized natural selection and the possible adaptive value of either Neanderthal or modern human traits. We show that instead, random changes over the past 500,000 years or so – since Neanderthals and modern humans became isolated from each other – are the best explanation for these differences

The Neanderthal theory of the week. I sometimes think that these guys sit around wondering how to get published, and they say "Hey, let's write a theory about Neanderthals."

[Minimalist]

Yeah, but at least it shows that lots of people are still interested in the subject. At the end of the day, that can't be all bad.

[Beagle]

Yeah, but at least it shows that lots of people are still interested in the subject.

That's for sure, and especially me. I can't resist reading a new article about them.

[daybrown]

http://hometown.aol.com/canovanogram/index.html
I am really struck by this. I mean if Homo Erectus is still with us, and there are dudes in the outback who say there are aboriginals with skulls like this- then, there may well be some HN throwbacks out in the boonies someplace.

Let me point out, that I usta work in clinical settings, have seen a lotta pin heads, microcephalic, and they do NOT have the back of the skull like this, altho the face can be similar lacking a forehead.

And given that Homo Floriensis came outta nowhere, begs the question.

[Rokcet Scientist]

And given that Homo Floriensis came outta nowhere, begs the question.

"Homo Floresiensis" is 'based' on one specimen only. Until corroborating other specimens have been found the current position is that HF is most probably an expression of 'Island Dwarfism'. Not another Homo species.

[Digit]

Back in the 60s RS an international convention was called to sort out names for hominid remains, it was suggested at the time that every new tooth dug up in Africa gave rise to a new genus.
Look at was constructed around a single tooth of Iguanodon.

[Beagle]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3310233.stm

New excavations show that a red colour made from ochre was used in burials 100,000 years ago, much earlier than other examples of colour association.

KB, this popped right up. It's not much, but what this article doesn't say is that the skeletons were Neanderthal. I'll find more and post it here.

[john]

............Like the famous,

or infamous, American civil rights movement,

and all the other civil rights movements,

I would suggest that we disregard the

taxonomic minutiae

and just look at what's human.

Red ochre included.



john