Archaeologica.org

Why did they make the crossing in the first place?

To get to the other side?




The idea that they crossed to Australia and had no contact with people on other islands seems unreasonable.

Yuk! Yuk! Yuk!

Roy.

Old guys have to do old jokes, Dig!

Dig, sometimes timing in life is everything. Last night, while reading 1491, Mann made this observation which strikes me as saying, in far more coherent terms, what bothers me about this whole issue.

He is speaking of an Amazonian tribe called the Botocudo:

With their slightly bulging brows, deepset eye, and square jaws, the Botocudo were phenotypically different (that is, different in appearance) from their neighbors-- a difference comparable to the difference between West Africans and Scandinavians.

He could just as easily have thrown in the Inuit or Bushmen. The point is that no one would suggest that these peoples are anything but HSS. They haven't made a case that the Neanderthal were all that different and, in fact, have noted that with a shave and a haircut, HNS could easily pass on our streets without drawing attention.

I keep drifting back to the idea that as the earliest depictions of HNS were of a dull, misshapen brute that we still have an instinctive desire to exclude them from our little clubhouse.

I agree with all you say Min, but my point was that rather than use the dreaded 'race' word they would have broadened the base lines to include everybody as HSS even if the Australians had had three legs!
HE migrated out of Africa into Asia long enough ago to have changed into another species or sub- species, this would have left his African cousins to change in a different direction.
I see no evidence, nor reason, to assume that Asian HE's simply went extinct thereby leaving the continent bereft of humans to be later refilled with another AoA species.
The late arrival of HSS into Europe has been explained as their having first settled in central Asia after leaving Africa, this neatly explains the existence of the various races with their ability to interbreed.
Having afforded HSN a near animal status based on European racial prejudices we still tend to be very touchy, not me I add, in using the word 'race' and that tends to cloud judgment IMO.

Roy.

I don't really have anything to add here. I just wanted to say that Roy makes sense. This is a very interesting topic and i want to encourage you all to continue this discussion. You are putting into words things that have always nagged at the back of my mind about the races. It's difficult to explain the differences in, say, the Sans, or "bushmen" of Africa and ...well just about any other race. They have an adaptation which no other races has. That being the ability to store mosture like a camel. They store it in their butt. Nobody else can do that. That doesn't make them "sub" anything, just different. A different species, perhaps, but not a lesser one.

A different species, perhaps, but not a lesser one.

Spot on Frank!

Roy.

The late arrival of HSS into Europe has been explained as their having first settled in central Asia after leaving Africa,

Yep, that is said to have happened at a series of sites at Kostenski, along the Don river in Russia. But we actually know very little about what happened there. Only two teeth have ever been found, and they are a source of ongoing argument. Other artifacts show a classical Mousterian culture was there first. Then there was a slow introduction of different technology, such as spear points made from bone.

The reasons could be plenty, such as a lack of lithic resources, different game being hunted (the Don river is a good food source), or possibly another culture did live side by side with Neanderthals.

If so, who were they? As you can imagine, most archaeologists said HSS from Africa. Some however, are beginning to question that. Why would any non cold adapted people make straight for the most frigid spot on the continent at that time. The Levant and southern Europe would be much more inviting.

I, like some others, are beginning to think that Kostenki is where East meets West, rather than West meets South.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_River,_Russia

Even if a second OoA headed straight to Europe Beag they would IMO only have been an overlay to the first OoA.
It is ridiculous to assume that a second OoA migration moved into an empty land, and two OoAs explains a lot of our physical differences.
One OoA followed by regional development of the original HE would do the same.
The idea of a second OoA moving into an empty land, or displacing an earlier people then developing the different racial identities we see today is damned difficult to explain within the approved time scale.

Roy.

In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

We assume that the aforementioned West Africans and Scandinavians can achieve this trick. What is the percentage genetic difference between those two groups ( I don't have a problem with 'races', either)? What is the difference between HNS and HSS, if anyone knows offhand.

What is the percentage genetic difference between those two groups (

I'd like to know also.
But as for species being defined as consisting a group that can reproduce with each other Min that is, I fear, another rule that is proved by its exceptions.
The various Ursids can cross breed as can the Felines, Canines and Chimps, along with Ovines, Bovines and Equines.
Either the term species has been wrongly applied or breeding across the species barrier is firmly established.

Roy.

Either the term species has been wrongly applied

I'll vote for (A), Roy. Unless "Homo" is the species and not Homo Sapiens!

Sorry - supper called. There is a very small per cent difference between any two human beings, unless they are identical twins. It's slightly larger between people of different races. The last I heard about Neanderthal was that we are 99.5 % identical, which is really close. And that actually falls within the modern range. I may have to double check that, or perhaps Cogs has it handy.

The differences were in his skeletal morphology (cold-adapted).

I also understand that to be the case Beag, but I wonder how that genetic spread compares with Polar bears for example.
As I pointed out earlier, our desire to prevent offending people requires that we all be HSS, no matter how broad the genetic differences.
Can you imagine the furore if genetics were to prove that NA Indians were not HSS?
There was a report the other day of the discovery of an 'intelligence gene' that appeared to be limited to the white races, and already that is causing disputes.
The existence of such a gene must have occurred before in the past to get us to where we are, so such a development should hardly be surprising.

Roy.

So........ let's substitute (in Mann's comment) the Inuit for the West Africans and breed them with the Scandinavians.

One would expect the Inuit to be "cold adapted" as well. Then again, shouldn't the Scandinavians favor those same cold adaptations?









The similarities are not overwhelming.


Of course, I may need to study the picture in depth.