Archaeologica.org

Digit wrote:Don't think the 'tools' Chimps use have any recognisable shape or form RS, but they do the job. Frankly, man's earliest tools would probably not even have been 'worked.'

If there are no recognisable features then calling these 'hominid tools' is purely speculative, to put it mildly. 'Wishful thinking' is probably more accurate.

Exactly! Viva bone idleness!

Hi fossiltrader...

Many thanks for all the info, links, photos, and your private e-mails. My latest e-mail to you addresses (sort of) your main concern.

As I said, I'm really pleased that you also see human agency in the material; at least a few of these are almost "no-brainers", aren't they? A couple doctorate-level professors here made the same observation (not archaeologists, however - a petrologist and a forensics specialist). I think you will find the following composite photo interesting, showing the standing figure along with stones from North America and Europe. From left to right, these are from

NSW, Australia.

Day's Knob, Ohio (not very photogenic - need to find a better example).

Dave Gillilan's finds, Ohio.

Richard Wilson's finds, Watford, England.

Ursel Benekendorff's finds, near Hamburg, Germany.

Last but not least, bottom, a modern but anciently traditional Inuit (Eskimo) sculpture by Teraq Ragee named "Birdman Calling".



I find the thematic similarity among these pieces, of such wide geographical distribution, to be quite amazing. The motif, which I have named "Sky Gazer", incorporates the one several German researchers (e.g., Dr. Elisabeth Neumann-Gundrum) have seen as "der Rufer" ("the caller") many decades ago, the "caller" looking straight on rather than upward.

This motif is clearly a primal one, along with several others seeming to have covered a lot of territory over a very long time. (There is also, for example, the theme of a small anthropomorphic and/or zoomorphic figure emerging from the mouth of a larger one, which the Germans [observant folks, aren't they?] long ago called "Atemgeburt", literally "breath birth", I suppose. [See http://www.daysknob.com/Emerging_Birds.htm ]. This motif is, quite intriguingly, also explicitly evident in modern but traditional Inuit/Yupik art.)

All this has caused me to give some serious thought to Dr. Alan Thorne's (ANU Canberra) controversial "regional continuity" hypothesis (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1541881/posts ), proposing that homo erectus (presumably not really all that dumb) widely dispersed him/herself across the planet early on in the game, then evolved locally and independently into the various human races. A couple months ago I started to compose an e-mail to Dr. Thorne presenting my observations. I haven't completed this; been busy, and also seem to waste a lot of time trying to sound more erudite than I really am.

Anyway, I hope all this gives you something to think about. I appreciate your taking an interest!

Regards, Alan

Hi AD happy to help what we are warned about is the berekhat Ram Syndrom hope the spelling right if not rocket will tell me lol.
What this means is if the Berekhat Ram is presented as the Berekhat Ram is it recognized as such merely because the name causes bias?.
I did suggest presenting the piece with no name to members of general public strangely my PhD lecturers didnt agree? to find what people thought with no name attached to object.
We are shown this item as a way of showing (possibly) that the naming of objects causes bias.
Therefore 90% of the items i examine arrive with no history and in many instances i never find out any more than please examine.
This i like as it does avoid bias i will email you privately after checking out the last pictures you posted just please allow a couple of days to arrive the gentleman you where going to write too? in Australia he is a decent bloke ,i think if you tell it in your own words he doesnt appear an ogre yes i was lucky to work with and know MIKE HE ONE OF THE BEST FIELD MEN I EVER MET.LOL HE HAS NO SENSE OF HUMOUR THOUGH LOL cheers Terry.

fossiltrader wrote:
[...] the berekhat Ram Syndrom hope the spelling right [...]

A.k.a. Berekhet Ram, Berechat Ram, Braikhat Ram, Birkat Ram....

Maybe I am being dumb but I'd be interested to learn what differences can actually be arrived at between supposed Neanderthal knapping and supposed HSS knapping? I am suggesting that maybe we are supposing too much?

I am particularly mindful that there is scarce evidence to suggest that European cave art can be directly attributed to HSS whereas there is much evidence to suggest that HSN was active around this time. Consequently the difference in tool industries could be confused.

Personally I have seen items from Fontmaure (a Neanderthal site) that are indistinguishable from the work of HE/HH. Is style/typology alone an appropriate method of determining who has made a tool?

fossiltrader wrote:LOL HE HAS NO SENSE OF HUMOUR THOUGH LOL cheers Terry.

You, on the other hand, obviously DO have a sense of humor. I like that.

Cheers.

Good question Rich, particularly as it has been suggested that the later HSNs copied HSS. How the hell they work that out baffles me!

Personally I have seen items from Fontmaure (a Neanderthal site) that are indistinguishable from the work of HE/HH. Is style/typology alone an appropriate method of determining who has made a tool?

Richard, suppose for a moment that there were hominids in the Americas prior to 50,000 years ago. In many cases, Charlie and I are picking up artifacts that resemble the technology of HSN ... however, it doesn't appear that HSN ever made it farther from Europe than Western Asia and possibly North Africa (I defer to R/S and eat humble pie). Now to make your life more difficult in my quest to be annoying, where do we draw the line between Erectus, HSN and HSS?

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html

"This second study estimates the most recent common ancestor of the Neanderthals at 151,000-352,000 years, while the human and Neanderthal divergence is placed at 365,00-853,000 years. The same model produces an age for the divergence of modern humans at 106,000-246,000 years ago.

Given the recent 195K HSS skeleton found in East Africa it appears that the older ranges above are more believable. Since Erectus remains have been found in Java dating anywhere from 27K to 53K years ago we have three different populations of hominids existing at the same time on the Eurasian-African continents. Remains of javelins from Germany 400Kya and fairly sophisticated tools in Africa from the same period leads me to believe our ancestors weren't as stupid as most scientist project.

Charlie and I believe there was a hominid presence in the Americas during the same early timeframe. Whether by Asia or Africa we don't know, maybe both. However, if Erectus was rafting to Flores 840Kya who is to say HSS could not have rafted throughout parts of the world 250Kya?

Personally, if I was traveling from Africa to the west 250Kya I would take a few HSN women slaves with me just for company. As Min pointed out earlier, just turn them over and they all look alike (I apologize for offending the females on this site, but hey ... I'm part cave man).

I'm part cave man).

Ugh.

Whether by Asia or Africa we don't know

Much easier crossing from Africa to S/A. Winds are right, too.

Being a retired engineer I keep coming back to, what I see, as the practical side of some of these problems.
Take the the supposed difference in tool design between HSN and HSS and ask yourself this question.
Just how many different ways can you make a servicable flint knife?
Take a look at modern fighter aircraft or autos. Two engineers faced with the same problems will tend to arrive at similar solutions, it has always been that way.

Minimalist wrote:

Whether by Asia or Africa we don't know

Much easier crossing from Africa to S/A. Winds are right, too.

Agreed. Quicker and not so damned cold. I think a good portion, too, may have come via Asia.

Cognito wrote:Personally, if I was traveling from Africa to the west 250Kya I would take a few HSN women slaves with me just for company. As Min pointed out earlier, just turn them over and they all look alike (I apologize for offending the females on this site, but hey ... I'm part cave man).

I'd take more than a few - but don't tell the wife.

I think you and Charlie (and some others) may well be shown to be correct in the long term.

With regard to the skeletal record we have got to bear in mind the effect of taphonomic processes. It is very difficult to draw any conclusions given the limits of our knowledge at the moment. Just because we don't find skeletal remains we shouldn't assume there was no prior occupation by hominids.

With regard to cognitive abilities I am certainly settling in the gradualist camp. Some interesting articles covering the weakness of the short-range theory.

www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik1.pdf
www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik2.pdf
www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik3.pdf
www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik4.pdf
www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik5.pdf
www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik6.pdf
www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik7.pdf
www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik8.pdf

Personally I am tending to the view that there is not enough distinction to warrant the designation of separate species. Does this give a clue to my answer regarding any line being drawn between HE, HSN and HSS?

Manystones wrote:

Cognito wrote:Personally, if I was traveling from Africa to the west 250Kya I would take a few HSN women slaves with me just for company. As Min pointed out earlier, just turn them over and they all look alike (I apologize for offending the females on this site, but hey ... I'm part cave man).

I'd take more than a few - but don't tell the wife.

I think you and Charlie (and some others) may well be shown to be correct in the long term.

With regard to the skeletal record we have got to bear in mind the effect of taphonomic processes. It is very difficult to draw any conclusions given the limits of our knowledge at the moment. Just because we don't find skeletal remains we shouldn't assume there was no prior occupation by hominids.

With regard to cognitive abilities I am certainly settling in the gradualist camp. Some interesting articles covering the weakness of the short-range theory.

www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik1.pdf
www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik2.pdf
www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik3.pdf
www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik4.pdf
www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik5.pdf
www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik6.pdf
www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik7.pdf
www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/rbednarik8.pdf

Personally I am tending to the view that there is not enough distinction to warrant the designation of separate species. Does this give a clue to my answer regarding any line being drawn between HE, HSN and HSS?

Are you saying they screwed?