Archaeologica.org

No! I'm asking you how you would measure or compare intelligence between peoples. You seem to have missed my point, if our brains are larger than Erectus' I asked you if that meant that each separate function had grown equally, and if not we cannot say that Erectus was less intelligent till we can measure it. Basic science.
An example, that part of the brain that controls involuntary actions, heart and respiration, would that be larger in our brain than Erectus?
Brocca's Bump, is ours larger than Erectus'?
Surely, beyond a certain size, any further increase would seem pointless would it not?

This is "Marine Archaeology, right?
I can see we're right on target with this Forum topic too!


Here's something to ponder.... Under the "Golden Age"
topic in this web site are some interesting maps showing
land mass before the large rise in sea level in the
Holocene... along with some other interesting reading.
It probably has been posted earlier, because I've notice
some references to a few paragraphs which I read here.

This concept concerning the Atlantic Ridge is interesting anyway.

http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/page9.htm

Yep! There are lots of things we don't know and lots of interesting possible answers, and Roberto, we don't stick to topics! We wander!

I've worked in clinical settings that had retards. But like Alzheimer's, sometimes a dim bulb will have a brighter day. To assume that Erectus never had a bright idea over the course of a million years or whatever... or that none of them was ever, as we now say "gifted", seems unrealistic.

Simply reducing the white matter to permit more grey would have a powerful empowering effect without any change in the skull size.

I look forward to more DNA data to sort this out.

Digit wrote:
Surely, beyond a certain size, any further increase would seem pointless would it not?

HN's extinction – despite his larger brain than ours – seems to indicate that, doesn't it?

But like Alzheimer's, sometimes a dim bulb will have a brighter day.

But would anyone listen? Perhaps they did not have our modern prejudices?

<But would anyone listen? Perhaps they did not have our modern prejudices?>
Anyone looking at the studies on group think takes away a degree of skepticism about what they thot they knew.

And in consideration, see how often people really do not see what is presented to them when it conflicts with prejudices.

That being said, let me one more time say why the Neanderthals went extinct- maternal mortality. It had always been high, which makes sense when you consider a more robust, and therefore more rigid skeleton.

During birth the HSS female pelvis literally cracks open to accomodate the birthing. I've not seen where anyone with access to a HNS pelvis even considered the question. But what else would you expect of *men*?

When you hybridize, you get lots of fertile males because the reproductive tract is so simple, and very few fertile females cause it aint so simple.

The HNS skeleton was more robust, but also more simian. The females didnt have the wide hips of the hourglass. But passing a neonate is only one part of the problem. Being able to carry a hybrid to term is necessary, and surviving the birth is nice.

Now, if this was indeed what was going on, then we'd expect far fewer females from either line to survive in the gene pool. There's 140 or so mtDNA lines in Africa, scores even in isolated areas like Australia, and 7 indigeneous mtDNA lines in Europe. Why only 7?

Sykes, who discovered this reports that the oldest lived in Europe 50,000 years ago. What he dont say, which I think you all know, is that 50kya, the only hominids in Europe were Neanderthal. The other six arrived much later, up until the agrarian revolution from Anatolia 10kya.

Other sources report 60 Y chromosome lines.

Now, as to the question of why anyone would listen, or in this case, read the above content. They dont *appear* to. Its like casting bread on water. The ideas will rattle around in the subconscious until some challenge arises that makes the standard mindframe uncomfortable. Economic hardship, or an emotional relationship breakup being typical.

If, for instance, according to the rules of group think, a former mate, or set of career collegues held a view, say in this case about the Neanderthal, and some bit of trivia comes to mind that challenges their view, it will be latched onto, and all these other facts, such as those presented above, will flood into the consciousness.

As if they were their own ideas, which now empower them to reject the former emotional or economic attachments. Conversely, falling "in love" creates unanimity, and as the ancients like Poltinus knew, in really asinine ideas.

There's a *reason* the ancient sages all spent time alone.

HN's extinction – despite his larger brain than ours – seems to indicate that, doesn't it?

So which parts of HSN's brain were larger than ours I wonder?

That being said, let me one more time say why the Neanderthals went extinct- maternal mortality. It had always been high, which makes sense when you consider a more robust, and therefore more rigid skeleton.

During birth the HSS female pelvis literally cracks open to accomodate the birthing. I've not seen where anyone with access to a HNS pelvis even considered the question. But what else would you expect of *men*?

When you hybridize, you get lots of fertile males because the reproductive tract is so simple, and very few fertile females cause it aint so simple.

DB where are you getting this information? HN skulls have the same suture lines as HS, and therefore their skulls were just as malleable during childbirth. Also, multiparous female skeletons have been found with the normal wear and tear pelvis evidence that we see in HS.

Mother Nature didn't foster Neanderthal evolution for 210,000 yrs. to have those kinds of non-starter issues. And hybrids? I'll get to that later.

Back to Marine Archaeology:

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article ... ryid=80355

Traverse City - Underwater archeologists have found what they suspect is a rock that contains an ancient carving of a Mastodon being hunted by humans. It could be the first proof that humans hunted the large beasts in Northern Michigan up to 10,000 years ago.

The stone formation is under 40-feet of water in Northern Michigan.

“It appears the rocks have been manipulated by man,” says Dr. Mark Holley, an archeologist for the Grand Traverse Bay Underwater Preserve Council who taught Underwater Archeology at Northwestern Michigan College. “But we still have to study the boulder to see if it is in fact a carving, or perhaps the result of natural phenomenon.”

Cool if true.

Beagle wrote:Back to Marine Archaeology:

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article ... ryid=80355

Traverse City - Underwater archeologists have found what they suspect is a rock that contains an ancient carving of a Mastodon being hunted by humans. It could be the first proof that humans hunted the large beasts in Northern Michigan up to 10,000 years ago.

The stone formation is under 40-feet of water in Northern Michigan.

“It appears the rocks have been manipulated by man,” says Dr. Mark Holley, an archeologist for the Grand Traverse Bay Underwater Preserve Council who taught Underwater Archeology at Northwestern Michigan College. “But we still have to study the boulder to see if it is in fact a carving, or perhaps the result of natural phenomenon.”

Cool if true.

I'm not holding my breath.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/arti ... wsid=82558

An ambitious five year project mapping Turkey's underwater history has been launched by the Dokuz Eylül University's (DEÜ) Marine Sciences and Technologies Institute (DBTE), the first such activity to be carried out by a Turkish university.

“The lost underwater history of the Aegean and Mediterranean” project, which began in May has already located over 20 shipwrecks, eight underwater ruins, and six sunken locations dating back to the Ottoman era. “Our goal is to find the sunken heritage of our country,” said Harun Özdaş, project manager and Underwater Archaeology assistant professor at DEÜ. Some 12 scientists have been assigned to the project including archaeologists, biologists and geophysicists.

Underwater archaeology underway around Turkey.

We're going to Greece/Turkey in October and Izmir is one of the stops. I'll keep an eye open.

That's right. Don't forget to take pics. The archaeology kind.

Talk to a midwife. The Ozarks never stopped using them. One told me that the HSS female pelvis not only cracks, but is shaped to cause a rotation the facilitates delivery. The HNS skull while being malleable, is also oval, with a smaller cross section than the more sephical H. Sapiens neonate.

So, a HSS female would be more able to safely deliver a hybrid, and a HNS female less able.

But in any case, the *fact* remains that hybridization produces lotsa fertile males, but few productive females. The hominids would be no different than crosses with donkeys and horses. I've heard of fertile Jacks, but nobody in my neck of Ozark woods ever heard of a fertile Jenny.

Native Europeans have only 7 mtDNA lines. If anyone has any *other* explanation than hybridization, I'd be grateful. More often, what we see is genocide, with all the males being killed and all the females added to the winner's gene pool. The stipulated war between European hominids would have dramatically reduced the number of Y chromosome lines.

There certainly *are* racist implications that would seem to empower white supremacists, until you remember their devotion to the King James Bible. That they are descended from Neanderthals does not do it for them. We can quit worrying about it.

And recent understanding of DNA and fertilization contradicts the challenges to hybridization. Just tonite, I read how vertibrate DNA, which includes the hominids, has bacterial DNA spliced into it. We know as well that there are bacteria, like e coli, that live symbiotically, and without their contribution, development would not progress. So, hybridization included adding the effects of microbes, for good or ill.

The whole thing is a whole lot more complex than linear descent from some African female.