Archaeologica.org

Somewhere, Daybrown must be smiling!

Yeah, I'll bet she is. BTW, she is the reason I went from a lurker to a poster.

Wow - what a statement. This report was posted earlier by myself and by Min. from two sources, but neither one had that quote in it from Paabo. Plus I noticed someone else called the study "bulletproof". I rarely see words like that from these guys. If it truly holds up then the implications are obvious.

Can you hear that sound? It's the sound of paradigms crashing!

I love that sound.

Minimalist wrote:Somewhere, Daybrown must be smiling!

I'm being nosey here, but er... why? I've spent a few days excavating the older threads and I have to admit I found myself skipping to the end of a lot of her posts after two paragraphs of well-made points would suddenly fly off into the realms of vedic karma dildos or something. It all kind of reminded me of a panel in an old Zippy the Pinhead cartoon by Bill Griffiths where a street crazy is mumbling to himself: "they killed Kennedy because of the radiation... the electric radiation..."
Have I missed something?
Er... if you want to ignore this question and just get on with the thread, I won't be offended.

She maintained the interbreeding of HNS and HSS did occur.

So I did miss something.

Folks - we still have to wait on the genetics. That could take some time.

But I'll have a cold one later for the good news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6146908.stm

New article on HNS genome.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story ... ker-103704

Fragments of DNA plucked from a 38,000-year-old Neanderthal fossil have pinpointed the time when modern humans split from their long-faced, barrel-chested relatives to become the world's most formidable species

An article from the news section today. Very mainstream and interesting.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID ... F783C3A07B

Researchers have unearthed the graves of three Stone Age infants that may ultimately bear on the question of whether humans interbred with Neandertals. The rare find, from a 27,000-year-old site in Austria, includes two bodies that might be twins sheltered under a mammoth's shoulder blade

Another article from todays news section (thanks Michelle). Interesting. Red ochre used in ritual burial was a trademark of Neandertals since 100kya+.

Now I have to go back and check. Wasn't red-ochre also used in those neolithic burials from Nazareth?

Yeah, red ochre has been used in many burials. The earliest ritual burial, in a cave in Israel, was Neandertal and red ochre was used, along with a ring of stones around the grave.

Later Solutreans placed caches of their clovis-like spearheads with red ochre. That custom made its way to the Americas also with Clovis technology.

It has later had world wide use and had some kind of sacred meaning probably. I think I'm right about this but I better go check.

This technology is very, very close to the Clovis technology. There are some differences but you do get the bifaces and you get caches. I think caches are important. In Clovis we find a lot of caches of these bifacial artifacts as we do in the Solutrean. The caches are normally associated with red ochre. We don't know the significance of the red ochre but they are both in Solutrean and Clovis.

This is a quote from the article that I posted on Dennis Stanford in the Pre-Columbian thread yesterday.

Red ochre in pre-history is an interesting subject.

Here is a decent article dealing with Neanderthal smarts, hunting strategy, mobility and a few other significant items. There's also a picture of my father at the beginning. I apologize if I have posted something that was posted here before, but I'm too sluggish today to check first:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/program ... mary.shtml