Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:55 pm
The reason we have as many fossils of HN as we do is because he buried his dead. Even at that, we don't have that many.
Archaeologica.org
Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
Neanderthal News
Page 13 of 52
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:00 pm
Agreed RS, presumably there have been a lot more Mammoths around than men.
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:13 pm
Of course. But also: if there were so many mammoths, there must have been a concentration of hunters(/gatherers) too. And I'd settle for just a handful of human fossils. But afaik that's precisely the problem: none have been 'caught' sofar where there should have been.Digit wrote:Agreed RS, presumably there have been a lot more Mammoths around than men.
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:33 pm
This post definately got lost in the frenetic pace of the days earlier posting. I'm bringing it forward as I think it's interesting for members and readers.Beagle wrote:This might be fun, and even informative. Please take a look at these images (I'm not addressing anybody in particular). When you see an image that looks like a Homo Sapien, then check where the skull was found. This is what physical anthropologists have to deal with.
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-hominina-fossils
They've got a tough job imo.
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:47 pm
Nice perspective.
Although I miss whatsisname "Chad Man" and his cousin. Bipeds from the Sahel region. About 6 or 7 million yrs BP, if I recall.
Although I miss whatsisname "Chad Man" and his cousin. Bipeds from the Sahel region. About 6 or 7 million yrs BP, if I recall.
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:14 am
I guess I'm not very familiar with Chad Man - but that's really old. I was really struck by the fact that I really didn't see any powerful evidence that Homo Sapien came "Out of Africa". Of course that is my layman viewpoint.
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:27 am
RS, been a difficult morning, hence the late response.
The one in 100 million is probably bullshit as there is very much a scale effect in preservation/fossilisation. The leg bones of a giant Dino are vastly more likely to survive down to us the than a similar structure of a Shrew, often in the case of such small mammals teeth alone surviving to tell of their existance.
This inevitably skews are view of the past as the survivability rates must favour, for example, Mammoth's teeth over those of HSS.
The one in 100 million is probably bullshit as there is very much a scale effect in preservation/fossilisation. The leg bones of a giant Dino are vastly more likely to survive down to us the than a similar structure of a Shrew, often in the case of such small mammals teeth alone surviving to tell of their existance.
This inevitably skews are view of the past as the survivability rates must favour, for example, Mammoth's teeth over those of HSS.
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:17 am
I meant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis, which I now see has been reclassified as a miocene ape, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin_tugenensis, therefore currently supposed to be the earliest known biped/hominin.Beagle wrote:
I guess I'm not very familiar with Chad Man - but that's really old.
This is a snap I found supposing to be Orrorin:
[/img]
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:53 am
Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well!
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:07 am
Yorick was one ugly fella. 
BTW Min - check out "Digging for the Truth" tonight. Olmecs. I'm not getting my hopes up.
BTW Min - check out "Digging for the Truth" tonight. Olmecs. I'm not getting my hopes up.
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:09 am
RS, I do remember that now. Quite a debate for awhile. The debate about Omo is still going on also.
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:31 am
If you can, guys, I'd very much appreciate it if you could rip it and distribute it here through http://www.yousendit.com/ (you upload to your own mail address, you get a link in the mail, you post that link here).Beagle wrote:Yorick was one ugly fella.
BTW Min - check out "Digging for the Truth" tonight. Olmecs. I'm not getting my hopes up.
Or some other similar service of course.
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:39 am
RS, I didn't post a pic or a link. So I'm a little lost. Are you unable to see the pics I post? If so, I'll use that link.Rokcet Scientist wrote:If you can, guys, I'd very much appreciate it if you could rip it and distribute it here through http://www.yousendit.com/ (you upload to your own mail address, you get a link in the mail, you post that link here).Beagle wrote:Yorick was one ugly fella.
BTW Min - check out "Digging for the Truth" tonight. Olmecs. I'm not getting my hopes up.
Or some other similar service of course.
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:47 am
Confusion:Beagle wrote:RS, I didn't post a pic or a link. So I'm a little lost. Are you unable to see the pics I post? If so, I'll use that link.Rokcet Scientist wrote:If you can, guys, I'd very much appreciate it if you could rip it and distribute it here through http://www.yousendit.com/ (you upload to your own mail address, you get a link in the mail, you post that link here).Beagle wrote:Yorick was one ugly fella.
BTW Min - check out "Digging for the Truth" tonight. Olmecs. I'm not getting my hopes up.
Or some other similar service of course.
with 'check out "Digging for the Truth" tonight. Olmecs' I thought you were referring to a TV show.
If so, I think it would be interesting for us non-US'rs too.
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:54 am
OK. You're right, I was referring to a US show. The only way that those shows have been shared in the past has been through Min. taping them and sending them out over Pando. If there is another way I don't know about it RS.
The show will be on tonight, but I suspect it won't be as good as I hope. You may know of a way for you to view it but I'm just not that savvy.
Maybe Min has some thoughts.
The show will be on tonight, but I suspect it won't be as good as I hope. You may know of a way for you to view it but I'm just not that savvy.
Maybe Min has some thoughts.