Archaeologica.org

In my opinion, you can't think of far-travelling trade groups this early.

Think of a necklace of beads; multiple groups "drifting" along, say, a migration route of preferred game.

By the way 2000 miles divided by 1 mile movement per day =5 1/2 years elapsed time. So this kind of movement is by no means unreasonable, given the variables of better hunting/fishing and a seasonally nomadic lifestyle.

Getting back to the necklace, if you have hundreds of bands stretched out at relatively close intervals (geographically, like 20-40 miles), and apply desirable raw materials, movement along the line will be swift and effective.

I think the correct paradigm is the "bucket brigade", i.e., trade goods being passed relatively swiftly down a geographic line of small groups of people who know the "people upstream" and the "people downstream".

To take a thousand pounds of flint and transport it 1000 miles in one shot doesn't fit.

To take 20 pounds of flint and tranport it 10 or 20 miles per stage, and multiply as a continuous movement, makes far more sense to me.


john

I think the correct paradigm is the "bucket brigade", i.e., trade goods being passed relatively swiftly down a geographic line of small groups of people who know the "people upstream" and the "people downstream".

Exactly ... I would only suspect an occasional traveler down the line just to satisfy some curiosity ... maybe. Like you, John, I don't believe distant trade for goods would make much sense in the Pleistocene.

MY FAMILY

john wrote:I think the correct paradigm is the "bucket brigade", i.e., trade goods being passed relatively swiftly down a geographic line of small groups of people who know the "people upstream" and the "people downstream".

I visualize this as well, John.

With no firm evidence that neandethals could speak ,bury their dead or produce art it a long jump to trade between tribes i think.

Ther'es no firm evidence that Dinos were cold blooded, that all Dinos laid eggs or that HSS is not a hybrid FT.
You either take the evidence as is, in little isolated packets with no connections between, or you have to interpret the evidence and form theories from that.

fossiltrader wrote:With no firm evidence that neandethals could speak ,bury their dead or produce art it a long jump to trade between tribes i think.

Hi Terry,

There is no firm evidence that Sapien, circa 8,000 BC, could speak.( that should spark some debate. )

Neanderthal did bury their dead. You won't find any evidence to refute that. I can post plenty that they did.

Neanderthal mined red ochre. We know that. Why would any human want paint?

Terry, here is John Hawks, a paleoanthropologist, commenting on evidence that Neanderthal had trading links. It's a bit speculative, but very worth consideration.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/arc ... _2007.html

I am fairly certain, neanderthal possessed some "advanced" tool technology which helped him thrive for thousands of years why HSS waned during the period. It was only after HSS made advances in tool tech, did they begin to rebound and overcome HSN populations. Not suggesting tools and weapons are the deciding actor in survival but I am suggesting a high degree of sophistication is required to create advanced technology.

What sort of advanced technology did HS have?

'Advanced' always mean in relation to the 'norm', so every step forward is advanced Beag.

Digit wrote:'Advanced' always mean in relation to the 'norm', so every step forward is advanced Beag.

Sure. Still, I'm wondering what technology of Sapiens was superior.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted the evidence, but the prevailing technology was of the Acheulean class used mainly by Homo Erectus. While I'm not a tool expert by any stretch of the imagination, these seem to be axes and large scrapers used mostly for dressing fauna.

The emergence of Neanderthal was soon associated with the Mousterian technology. Here was a leap in development with finer tools made for a larger variety of purposes (or so we suppose). It seems some tools are specifically adapted to wood-working, some to animal dressing, hide scrapers, and there is evidence of collections of tools for specific purposes found together.

HSS living in and among HSN in europe did not show evidence of more sophisticated tools until very late in the existence of HSN as a species. It was at this time, we find more sophisticated tools made from bone, antlers and similar materials. The move away from lithics was something HSN did not accomplish throughout his 40k or more of habitation in eurasia and it is suggested that this next level of technology came from HSS in africa. Further the use of projectiles seems to a have been introduced by HSS later in the existence of HSN.

Like Digit said, "advanced" means better crafted or more versatile than ones in common useage at the time.

Here is a link which shows the technologies from the period:
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Cour ... ithic.html

The question of whether Neanderthals could speak, or what level of speech they may have possessed is still unanswered. To state that they did or did not is still premature:

http://ebbolles.typepad.com/babels_dawn ... l_sym.html

Cognito wrote:The question of whether Neanderthals could speak, or what level of speech they may have possessed is still unanswered

Interesting. Here's another consideration:
Is it possible for a species to understand speech, even if they anatomically are incapable of producing it? Or is the part of the brain which comprehends speech only evolved in species which can produce speech?

It would have been weird if HSN could understand what HSS were saying but could not communicate in-kind. Then again, even a parrot can imitate words. If HSN was anatomically similar he could have at least imitated HSS speech even he did not understand it. (But speaking without understanding is not really - speech - now is it?)

It would have been weird if HSN could understand what HSS were saying but could not communicate in-kind.

And vice versa, FM. The first meeting between bands of HSS and HSN must have really been weird. There would be no way they could understand each other initially except by body and sign language. It is difficult for me to believe that HSN didn't have some sort of rudimentary verbal speech at a minimum. They were not only developing tools but tool sets, mining red ochre for ceremonial purposes, burying their dead with flowers (ie compassion), taking care of the injured, etc. As stated in the following article Modern Human Origins and Neanderthal Extinctions in the Levant, Athena Review Vol.2, no.4, by John Shea:

"The most interesting thing about the Levantine record is that until 47,000 BP, there is no objective basis for predicting whether Neanderthals or early modern humans would ultimately be the most successful, and certainly no way to predict that modern humans would permanently replace the Neanderthals. ... The picture of the Neanderthals emerging from recent research is one of formidable competitors, humans every bit as worthy of our interest and admiration as our own direct ancestors."

See: http://www.athenapub.com/8shea1.htm