Archaeologica.org

Let the games begin!

The symbolic starting gun has been fired!

The symbolic starting gun has been fired!

Alright, Charlie. Bombs away!

Charlie, that was quick. Here's Wolpoff's reponse to the lice article:

Thanks for writing.

This idea of calculating how much gene flow it takes for MRE to work is a fabrication of people who are sure it doesn't work. But for genes under selection, which are the genes we expect would be spreading throughout the human species, any minimal contact is enough and while that doesn't tell us how much gene flow there actually was at any time or place, it does address the idea that there couldn't have been enough if it was below some concocted minimum.

SO, even as originally interpreted, the lice story is not incompatible. All this, of course, does not make MRE correct, it just invalidates some of the arguments that it can't be!

Charlie, maybe I'll invite him to the party.

I'll be siitin' this one out guys. Have fun. Take a lot of pics, and make sure I get 'em.

Charlie, put a hand axe in Mins' hand and take a pic. Should make a good avatar.

Quote:
Thanks for writing.

This idea of calculating how much gene flow it takes for MRE to work is a fabrication of people who are sure it doesn't work. But for genes under selection, which are the genes we expect would be spreading throughout the human species, any minimal contact is enough and while that doesn't tell us how much gene flow there actually was at any time or place, it does address the idea that there couldn't have been enough if it was below some concocted minimum.

SO, even as originally interpreted, the lice story is not incompatible. All this, of course, does not make MRE correct, it just invalidates some of the arguments that it can't be!

Cool stuff, Bro.

Who's the other lice researcher you've been corresponding with? Maybe you could post his last response and his latest paper for us to read.

Charlie, put a hand axe in Mins' hand and take a pic. Should make a good avatar.

We may have to wait until Bush is out of office...

Beagle wrote:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... .0x9584c20

Parasites can be used as unique markers to investigate host evolutionary history, independent of host data. Here we show that modern human head lice, Pediculus humanus, are composed of two ancient lineages, whose origin predates modern Homo sapiens by an order of magnitude (ca. 1.18 million years). One of the two louse lineages has a worldwide distribution and appears to have undergone a population bottleneck ca. 100,000 years ago along with its modern H. sapiens host. Phylogenetic and population genetic data suggest that the other lineage, found only in the New World, has remained isolated from the worldwide lineage for the last 1.18 million years. The ancient divergence between these two lice is contemporaneous with splits among early species of Homo, and cospeciation analyses suggest that the two louse lineages codiverged with a now extinct species of Homo and the lineage leading to modern H. sapiens. If these lice indeed codiverged with their hosts ca. 1.18 million years ago, then a recent host switch from an archaic species of Homo to modern H. sapiens is required to explain the occurrence of both lineages on modern H. sapiens. Such a host switch would require direct physical contact between modern and archaic forms of Homo.

This is the abstract of a much longer paper. Wolpoff is a multi-regionalist.
Naturally, the simpler solution of humans in the Americas in very ancient times is not discussed.

Ummmmm. Yaaasss.

That is very attractive as an argument for pre Homo Sap. in the Americas. Despite the fact of no freakin' evidence atall.

Let's see if we can actually demonstrate the length and the breadth of pre-clovis first.

However, speaking of "modern and archaic forms", it would seem axiomatic to me to consider precursor groups of simians, or proto-anthropoids, as a possible host for sd. hd. lice.

Just thinking outloud...........


john

That is very attractive as an argument for pre Homo Sap. in the Americas. Despite the fact of no freakin' evidence atall.

Hueyatlaco, Calico, Charlie's site tools dated at 145000bp. At some point, those need to be addressed and explained. Other finds, such as the Lake Chapala H. erectus skull cap provide preliminary evidence that something is up in the woodpile.

Let's see if we can actually demonstrate the length and the breadth of pre-clovis first.

This is pre-Clovis.

However, speaking of "modern and archaic forms", it would seem axiomatic to me to consider precursor groups of simians, or proto-anthropoids, as a possible host for sd. hd. lice.

This is a genetically distinct human louse that diverged 1.18 million years ago, not simian, not proto-anthropoid.

Cognito -

You're singing to the choir here.

However, as I understand the argument, there is a human-specific species of head louse which is a.) 1.8 million years old and b.) found only in the new world.

At 1.8 million years I have to conclude that we are not speaking of Homo sap. but of a precursor species which originated the parastitic relationship.

We don't have true evidence of ANYTHING human in the new world prior to approx. 30k BP - I'm speaking of Monte Verde here - so to me the logical direction to go would be to look at just who was around @ 1.8m BP and possible links to the new world.

What's truly weird to me here is that we have evidence of the presence of very old proto hominids and/or Homo sap. everywhere but the N/S American continent.


Pereseverance Furthers


john


ps

And btw I was finding what seemed awfully like handaxes on dry lakebeds in the Calico/Yermo area as far back as 1957, and aware of what I was finding, as the child of my father who was a member of those expeditions. Had a cool childhood.

John,

The reason why the head lice phenomenon is important is due to the date of divergence at 1.18 million years. That date is consistent with new finds at Hueyatlaco. It is fascinating that few arches bother to look for ancient hominid traces in the Americas since they are not supposed to be there. If Leakey had taken the same approach he never would have dug up Zinj in Africa in the first place.

I am finding human worked tools just up from the shore of Lake Manix which drained catastrophically at 16,000bce. Merdith Dunn of the USGS will hopefully push that event back to 18,000-22,000bce this fall as a result of recent investigations. How old are the tools? Certainly older than the dates just mentioned, certainly older than Clovis. However, I have seen what has been pulled out of the Calico dig pits and dated to 200,000bp. They ain't just sharp rocks!

Until ancient hominid bones are recovered in situ people will remain skeptical and rightly so. However when they are discovered, and I fully believe they will be, I will dance a jig on Hrdlicka's tombstone.

Cognito -

Once again, yes. Singing to the choir, again.

Let me put this simply - and with no negative implied. Head lice - without the accompanying heads - are an argument without beginning nor end. Re very very early occupation of the Americas. I was with Raymond Alf in the late fifties when we collected the first jellyfish and worm track impressions from the Bass formation in the lower Grand Canyon, so I know the point-of-proof argument, this in reference to the "earliest life on earth" at that point in time. Took a lot of shit from the scientific mainstream.

And sorry about the 1.8 reference. 1.18 still precedes Homo sap., in my opinion. So I would like your opinion as to when Homo sap. emerged as a species, and the possible inferences of a Homo sap. head louse which preceded our exisiting knowledge of the species by maybe 500,000 years. Seems to be a big gap in both our knowledge, and the record, here.

And Hueyatlaco, if 250k as posited is cool, but it is still 3/4 of a million years away from the head lice....................

Your theory about that gap, Mr. Leakey?

john

The 'gap' between the earliest material proof and 1.18 Myr ago is sufficient for much, if not all, evidence to have been eradicated by all sorts of natural disasters.
'Proof', or otherwise, may have to come from inference rather than physical remains.
Worked stone in the absense of Homo remains would be accepted by most as proof of Homo, or similar, the same should logically apply to head lice, unless somebody has got something wrong of course.

John, first of all I think it's cool that you were kicking around Yermo (Spanish for "Desert Wasteland") in 1957 picking up items off the desert floor that resembled hand axes. As you likely know, that's what started Calico in the first place ... Leakey just went from the valley up the hill and said "Dig here". Where Leakey chose to dig isn't too surprising. There are tool assemblages all over the hillsides.

Let me put this simply - and with no negative implied. Head lice - without the accompanying heads - are an argument without beginning nor end. Re very very early occupation of the Americas.

Respectfully, I disagree since I believe the results throw into question the premiss upon which all pre-Clovis sites are discounted. That is, "There is no evidence for human occupation in the Americas prior to Clovis." If that is so, how do we explain the head lice phenomenon? "An isolated population of H. erectus infected H. sapiens on their way to the New World." That explanation, quite frankly, is preposterous.

I am expected to believe that a H. erectus population isolated itself in Asia for over a million years with no interaction whatsoever during that period of time with other hominids. That explanation does not fit the multiregional model (therefore my prior comments from Wolpoff) and stretches the imagination in the Out of Africa model. How could a H. sapiens population infect itself with H. erectus lice without back-infecting the populations who remained behind in Asia? Oh, I get it ... everyone moved in one direction to the Americas? It's all too convenient.

My point? The premiss that there were no hominids in the Americas at an ancient date cannot be considered true or false at this time. However, many in the scientific establishment have taken the attitude that a lack of evidence has made the premiss true. Then when evidence does comes along it is discounted. That's bad logic and bad science. The premiss should be stated "There may or may not have been hominids in the Americas at an ancient date." That premiss allows for scientific exploration without loss of funding and grief.

As opposed to the head lice phenomenon being an argument without a beginning or end, I propose that it is a scientific finding and a fact to be explored and explained in a reasonable manner. So far, I haven't seen any such reasonable explanation. The gap in time between 250,000bp at Hueyatlaco and 1.18million years does not bother me. I am more concerned about gathering what evidence is available without filtering it first through biased sunglasses.

I was with Raymond Alf in the late fifties when we collected the first jellyfish and worm track impressions from the Bass formation in the lower Grand Canyon, so I know the point-of-proof argument, this in reference to the "earliest life on earth" at that point in time. Took a lot of shit from the scientific mainstream.

Congratulations on being on the shit wagon in the past ... it makes for a wild ride, right?

And sorry about the 1.8 reference. 1.18 still precedes Homo sap., in my opinion. So I would like your opinion as to when Homo sap. emerged as a species, and the possible inferences of a Homo sap. head louse which preceded our exisiting knowledge of the species by maybe 500,000 years. Seems to be a big gap in both our knowledge, and the record, here.

The earliest true H. sapiens bones I have seen recovered is 195,000bp in Ethiopia. However, if you look at the Atapuerca findings they sure look similar to H. sapiens. Well, that can't be since they are 800,000bp so let's call them H. antecessor instead, alright? My best guess is that H. sapiens are about 250,000bp, but if you're a multiregionalist the argument is irrelevant.

How do I explain the 930,000 year gap between Hueyatlaco and the head lice divergence? You are asking me to speculate (the bane of Marduk) but here is what I expect to see over the next few years or decades:

(1) Sites such as Hueyatlaco, Calico, Charlie's, and others will continue to provide evidence of tool working. Eventually, bones will be found in lacustrine deposits and initially discounted (of course). Budinger believes the Calico site will eventually be shown to be 350-500,000 years old.

(2) Al Goodyear's site is the tip of the iceberg on the east coast. Notice that Goodyear has not published anything other than carbon dating for his finds (limited to approx. 50,000 years). Beagle will volunteer, be given latrine duty, and make an important discovery while wading through shit.

(3) Technological advances in dating techniques will finally provide reliable dates for tool assemblages, and will show that hominids were working tools and occupying the Americas for hundreds of thousands of years before the Clovis police suspected.

What about that 930,000 year gap? Either Asian or African erectus. Don't underestimate their seafaring capabilities.

everytime i read this thread i feel itchy