The study of religious or heroic legends and tales. One constant rule of mythology is that whatever happens amongst the gods or other mythical beings was in one sense or another a reflection of events on earth. Recorded myths and legends, perhaps preserved in literature or folklore, have an immediate interest to archaeology in trying to unravel the nature and meaning of ancient events and traditions.
From the article: "The artifact also shows microscopic remnants of iron oxide and manganese oxide, chemicals used in early red pigments, implying it had been painted." Not a bad likeness for 400kya. Looks like someone I dated when I was young and not yet picky.
Digit wrote:On the basis that HSN was more robust than HSS.
HSN as a species is now extinct and HSS is not, yet.
Digit, this only works (if at all) by assuming that HSN and HSS were a different species. Maybe you've been reading another thread, but to clarify the implication is that there was a robust Homo that fairly rapidly underwent a process of gracilisation, the end product we both represent. Possibly the result of a culturally influenced selection process compounded by genetic drift or introgression, geologic and climatic events.
My views on the subject of HSN/HSS have been posted here at some length so I won't bore people by repeatng them. By definition, at the moment, HSN and HSS are different species, but for the future?
By who and when has it been determined that 'HSN' and 'HSS' could not produce fertile offspring? Again assuming that they were indeed separate species and not really one undergoing self-domestication.
From the article: "The artifact also shows microscopic remnants of iron oxide and manganese oxide, chemicals used in early red pigments, implying it had been painted." Not a bad likeness for 400kya. Looks like someone I dated when I was young and not yet picky.
Not bad for 400,000 yrs. old,eh? And then there's the Berekhat Ram figurine, looking much like the Tan Tan, that dates to 250,000 yrs. ago. It was found in the Golan Heights of Israel.
Europe has many of these same figurines, called Venus figurines, that were originally ascribed to Neanderthals. They have since been redated and said to have been made by HSS.
Digit wrote:My views on the subject of HSN/HSS have been posted here at some length so I won't bore people by repeatng them. By definition, at the moment, HSN and HSS are different species, but for the future?
I don't agree with you here Dig. They were both Homo Sapien. Any other distinctions were regional adaptations, such as we see today.
You misunderstood me on both counts Beag, I have stuck my neck out here numerous time on this.
I am in no way suggesting that they could not reproduce, in fact I strongly believe that they could, and my statement that
By definition, at the moment, HSN and HSS are different species, but for the future?
was meant that officially they are two separate species, with separate names, but in the future that may have to be changed.
I have repeated that I believe, based on morphology, that modern man is a hybrid.
I hope that clarifies my point.
Mornin' Dig. No big deal. I'm only partial to the word admixture. There is a difference, but I know what you mean. I'll try and be more clear later today. Time for coffee y'know.
Sort've Digit. My views on this are my own, although it's taken from the writings of many researchers. Sometimes two different species can breed, but the offspring is often sterile, reproductively.
On the other hand, if a Caucasion and an Asian person have a child today, (pretty common actually) the child is often referred to as being "mixed race". I consider this an admixture. There is no reason to believe that HS and HN became two species after a paltry 400,000 yrs. I've posted an article before from Hawks (a physical anthropologist) that speciation takes at least 2 million years of separation.
They were separated long enough to become racially distinct, as they are today across Africa, Europe, and East Asia.
