Archaeologica.org

http://www.uvi.si/eng/slovenia/backgrou ... hal-flute/

The find of a "Neanderthal flute" is certainly one of the archaeological discoveries in Slovenia to have excited the most interest, and to have initiated the most debate

Probably the first musical instrument was a drum. So far however, the first instument is credited to Neandertal. That is just one of many firsts, including ritual burial.

More to come.

As of right now, mDNA studies point to a separation between H. Sapien and H. Neandertalensis at 500,000 yrs. ago. A few years ago, after the initial genetic studies, the separation was determined to be at 800,000 yrs. ago. Genetics is still a new science.

The final resolution will happen after very firm, unquestionable nuclear DNA studies are completed. That will be some time in the future.

If Neandertal is shown to be unrelated to modern Europeans, then I will readily accept it, and have to totally rethink what I know about evolution.
I have never had a problem with the belief the HNS could have become extinct. Although I don't know of any sub-species or race of modern man to be totally vanquished by disease - it's possible. There are many other possibilities though, by which Neandertal could have become extinct.

But first, let's consider what we know about HNS - without speculation.
1 - He had a very large brain - in fact, larger than modern mans by 75-100 cm. He is credited with a number of firsts for man, such as making a musical flute, as posted above.
2 - He had a large prominent nose. No science that I have seen refutes the fact that this is the most cold-adapted nose. (unfortunately, all races have their epithets. The Chinese have a word for Caucasions that means big-noses)

3 - Neandertal was very stocky and robust. At one point in his "evolution" he averaged 6ft. tall, but in the glacial periods became shorter.
4 - His femur (long thigh bone) was curved in a way that might make him seem bow-legged. Although to look at him he wouldn't appear that way. Why? This bone structure is most successful in very uneven terrain, such as mountains and ravines - enabling him to run up and down a steep hill quickly in a side to side motion.

What do these things tell us about him? Mostly, that he lived in a cold and hilly to mountainous environment. It's important to note that there was not just "one" Neandertal. The first inklings of his appearance from Heidelburgensis came over 300,000 yrs. ago. By the time he "disappeared" he had been through several changes.

In other words, he evolved.

Back shortly.

I like your summary.
However, I am a little confusedby the last paragraph about
appearnce.. Is the date right? The first paragraph seems to give different dates.

Although I don't know of any sub-species or race of modern man to be totally vanquished by disease - it's possible.

Doesn't have to be "totally." Everything I've seen about Neanderthal has them living in small groups. Something like the 1918 Spanish Flu, which disproportionately hit people in the 20-40 age range, would be devastating. How many deaths of the most productive members of a small group would it take to make the group non-viable?

Let's consider modern (native) Europeans. We are told that they are a product of the "Out of Africa" model and began entering Europe c. 40,000 yrs. ago. In those 40,000 yrs. they have characteristics unlike anyone on the planet. Without being ethnocentric, they are:
1 - light skinned - necessary for the absorption od Vitamin D3 which only is obtained from sunlight. Recent studies are showing that it has many more vital functions than making "strong bones". The latitude of northern Europe decreases that amount of direct sunlight.
2 - light straight hair, either red or blonde. Straight hair is more effective at insulating the body against cold.
3 - Increased amount of thick facial and bodily hair. Again - insulation.
4 - a larger and more prominent nose than other races - add longer to make more sense of it. (see above epithet)
5 - a comparitive lack of perspiration glands, producing less perspiration than other races. In extreme cold, perspiration will freeze on the skin. The person in the skin may die.
6 - A relatively curved femur. Anthropologists know quickly if they are looking at the femur of a Caucasion. If you turn the femur on its' side, an adult hand can slide underneath it up to the knuckles and sometimes further. With an Oriental femur the hand can be slid under to just past the first small joints of the digits. (if you need the medical term, I'll give it.) In an African person the hand can hardly slide under the femur at all. These are the straight, more gracile femurs, adapted to flat terrain,etc.

In short, the modern European is more highly adapted to cold, northern climes than any other man on the planet. And this in 40,0000 yrs.

The Inuits have been in extreme northern cold climates, as have others, for approx. 15,000 yrs. In that period of time - not a drop of genetic adaptation.

Back shortly.

Not all of Europe is cold; Greece, Italy, and Spain are downright balmy.
How much of those 40,000 years would have been used up by people spreading northwest from the Levant towards Germany, Britain and Scandinavia?

stan wrote:I like your summary.
However, I am a little confusedby the last paragraph about
appearnce.. Is the date right? The first paragraph seems to give different dates.

Stan, HNS is usually credited with his first appearance on the world stage at about 200 - 250kya. However, anthroplogists have reported that they have seen evidence of Heidelburgensis changes in the direction of Neandertal at more than 300,000 ya.

I hope I'm not being confusing.

Beagle wrote:Let's consider modern (native) Europeans. We are told that they are a product of the "Out of Africa" model and began entering Europe c. 40,000 yrs. ago. In those 40,000 yrs. they have characteristics unlike anyone on the planet. Without being ethnocentric, they are:
1 - light skinned - necessary for the absorption od Vitamin D3 which only is obtained from sunlight. Recent studies are showing that it has many more vital functions than making "strong bones". The latitude of northern Europe decreases that amount of direct sunlight.
2 - light straight hair, either red or blonde. Straight hair is more effective at insulating the body against cold.
3 - Increased amount of thick facial and bodily hair. Again - insulation.
4 - a larger and more prominent nose than other races - add longer to make more sense of it. (see above epithet)
5 - a comparitive lack of perspiration glands, producing less perspiration than other races. In extreme cold, perspiration will freeze on the skin. The person in the skin may die.
6 - A relatively curved femur. Anthropologists know quickly if they are looking at the femur of a Caucasion. If you turn the femur on its' side, an adult hand can slide underneath it up to the knuckles and sometimes further. With an Oriental femur the hand can be slid under to just past the first small joints of the digits. (if you need the medical term, I'll give it.) In an African person the hand can hardly slide under the femur at all. These are the straight, more gracile femurs, adapted to flat terrain,etc.

In short, the modern European is more highly adapted to cold, northern climes than any other man on the planet. And this in 40,0000 yrs.

The Inuits have been in extreme northern cold climates, as have others, for approx. 15,000 yrs. In that period of time - not a drop of genetic adaptation.

Back shortly.

beagle,

i'm not sure how it escaped me, but i didn't know about the femur difference. i've been a member one day and learned something valuable already. thanks.

Minimalist wrote:Not all of Europe is cold; Greece, Italy, and Spain are downright balmy.
How much of those 40,000 years would have been used up by people spreading northwest from the Levant towards Germany, Britain and Scandinavia?

The north-south movement of humankind - both seasonally and due to climate change, only makes sense. Migration is what the animals would do, and humans followed the animals.

Neandertal is known to have co-existed with early modern man for 20,000 yrs. in the Levant. It is here that Trinkaus believes cross-breeding first occurred. Around 100,000 yrs. ago.

The HNS that did remain in Europe would probably have migrated to southern Europe. Unglaciated but very cold at that time - and hilly.

Gruna - I learn something new here every day.

I'm pretty worn out with Neandertal tonight, and I haven't even gotten to his biggest enemy. I'll talk about him another time - Homo Politicus Scientificus.

sex and the neandertal? ihear they had big breasts and a nice butt. give them a bath and comb their hair and they clean up real nice to. we have this notion that we are so supieor to all other life that that justifies genocide and mass extinctions. could neandertal be the first example of genocide? that seems to be the consensus of most archeologists. or did they just get the hell out of dodge and cover their tracks. could this be how creamation came about? destroy the evidence so you can't be found. as the evidence mounts up this could be a plausible theory. where did they go? the only place on the planet we can't find the history,or bones, is the north american continent.

Bruce wrote:sex and the neandertal? ihear they had big breasts and a nice butt. give them a bath and comb their hair and they clean up real nice to. we have this notion that we are so supieor to all other life that that justifies genocide and mass extinctions. could neandertal be the first example of genocide? that seems to be the consensus of most archeologists. or did they just get the hell out of dodge and cover their tracks. could this be how creamation came about? destroy the evidence so you can't be found. as the evidence mounts up this could be a plausible theory. where did they go? the only place on the planet we can't find the history,or bones, is the north american continent.

Bigfoot?

Sounds more like BigButt.

give them a bath and comb their hair and they clean up real nice to

Oh yeah shes a looker all right, how many orang utangs have you been dating recently bruce