Archaeologica.org

kbs2244 wrote:If brain size determined intelligence, wouldn’t elephants, or blue whales, rule the world?

(But then, maybe they are smart enough to just not get involved?)

It's not the actual physical size that matters kbs... It's the brain to body size ratio that counts. For Cetacea, their brain to body size ratio is comparable to humans. That's why we suspect that they are possibly as intelligent as humans. As far as elephants are concerned, their ration is lower, therefore most probably not.

Use your head for more than just a hat rack kbs... Don't throw out devil's advocate type comments just to be argumentative. It's annoying & inane.

Considering that chimps & bonobos also make tools despite their small brain size, why should we be surprised by the Philippine hominids?

Actually, Spice, I am not surprised.

It is not the size as much as the organizational structure of the brain that matters. I believe the Georgian H erectus specimens were also quite diminutive and making tools.

I quite agree, Cogs. How smart do you have to be to make a stone tool?

Whereas Homo Sapiens has a much larger brain and we elected this neanderthal.

Cognito wrote:

Considering that chimps & bonobos also make tools despite their small brain size, why should we be surprised by the Philippine hominids?

Actually, Spice, I am not surprised.

It is not the size as much as the organizational structure of the brain that matters. I believe the Georgian H erectus specimens were also quite diminutive and making tools.

Hey cogs, wasn't there a great deal of diversity among the Dmanisi hominids? I seem to recall the article stating that if all the specimens hadn't been found in the same context they would have been assigned to different species.

My hat rack is squeaking again.
I was not aware of the size vs weight argument.

But if,
"It is not the size as much as the organizational structure of the brain that matters."

How do we determine the organizational structure of a brain from a skull that is multi thousands of years old?

Just trying to learn.

kbs2244 wrote:My hat rack is squeaking again.
I was not aware of the size vs weight argument.

But if,
"It is not the size as much as the organizational structure of the brain that matters."

How do we determine the organizational structure of a brain from a skull that is multi thousands of years old?

Just trying to learn.

The internal surface of the skull preserves some details of the surface structure of the brain encased within said skull. For example, a part of the brain called Broka's Area has been proven to leave its imprint in the inside of the skull. It is an area of the frontal lobe, usually located on the left side of the brain, that pertains to speech. Broka's Area has been located & identified inside some primitive human skulls indicating a capacity for speech. There are other physical aspects of the brain that are preserved as a cast or imprint. The reason why is because bone is a living tissue that grows & replaces parts of itself as long as the organism lives.

Next question?

The internal surface of the skull preserves some details of the surface structure of the brain encased within said skull.

That is correct. However, we are now moving beyond that type of neuro analysis to something more intriguing: https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/ancie ... n-in-dish/

Sequencing Hobbits will allow the same approach to determine differences and characteristics.

Cognito wrote:

The internal surface of the skull preserves some details of the surface structure of the brain encased within said skull.

That is correct. However, we are now moving beyond that type of neuro analysis to something more intriguing: https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/ancie ... n-in-dish/

Sequencing Hobbits will allow the same approach to determine differences and characteristics.

Very cool article Cogs! Thanks for the link.

So, if this " Broka's Area" exists, and depending on its relative size, we can determine the amount of similarity to current homo sapiens?
Bigger is better?

Let’s hope the guy in San Diego doesn’t get ahold of Abby's DNA !

kbs2244 wrote:So, if this " Broka's Area" exists, and depending on its relative size, we can determine the amount of similarity to current homo sapiens?
Bigger is better?

Let’s hope the guy in San Diego doesn’t get ahold of Abby's DNA !

Relative size, shape, location, etc. of the known surface features of the brain can give an indication of the similarities & differences between us & the organism that we are comparing to ourselves.

While KB is contemplating Broca's Area, I am wondering if the Hobbit had the FoxP2 gene: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 141733.htm

So now we have switched from faint physical evidence to looking for a single DNA sequence in samples multi tens of thousands of years old?

My opinion of DNA evidence is that it has a lot of human “interpretation.”
Even with samples a week old.

The Myth of Fingerprints vs DNA

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... UxNTExOAS2

Cognito wrote:While KB is contemplating Broca's Area, I am wondering if the Hobbit had the FoxP2 gene: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 141733.htm

Communication is an extremely important, very basic function for most higher organisms. How can pack or herd animals function without some form of communication? I wouldn't be surprised at all if the FOXP2 gene goes back very far into deep antiquity, for many disparate species. It just makes sense.

My opinion of DNA evidence is that it has a lot of human “interpretation.”
Even with samples a week old.

KB, without DNA evidence I would never have discovered my half-sister, born before my parents were married. We are now the best of friends. Nor would I have been able to definitively trace my paternal grandfather's maternal grandfather in Ireland back to 1765, before records, and meet my third cousins in the U.S. who are all related to my great-grandmother's nephew who emigrated to Massachusetts with his family in 1883. DNA analysis can be quite useful.

kbs2244 wrote:So now we have switched from faint physical evidence to looking for a single DNA sequence in samples multi tens of thousands of years old?

My opinion of DNA evidence is that it has a lot of human “interpretation.”
Even with samples a week old.

The Myth of Fingerprints vs DNA

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... UxNTExOAS2

Your opinion always assumes/presumes that none of the currently available technology could possibly be used reliably & therefore any conclusions arrived at from the use of DNA (and other technologies) must be perjured by either the lab technicians or the anthropologists/archaeologists interpreting said data. You want to believe that the general public is being lied to & misled by the 'powers that be'. There will never be an occasion where you can concede that the data could ever be correct. It doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions & biased world view.