We are, again, older than we thought

[john]

All -

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... sions.html

What is fascinating to me is the mention of cognition

With respect to seemingly delicate obsidian blades

And the lacustrine environment,

All this 80k years before we

"Came of age" as a supposed species,

According to conventional wisdom.

Gosh boy howdy.

It would seem to me that someone

Living at the shores of a pretty goodsized lake, with

All the resources which it might provide,

Who had the cognitive and physical techne to fashion obsidian blades,

Might just have gotten up one morning

And decided to build a boat.

Minimalist, I'll bet you a hundred dollars

Right now

That Hematite will be found In Situ.


hoka hey

john

[Minimalist]

Someday, they may find a boat made of hematite.

[john]

Someday, they may find a boat made of hematite.

Early ferroconcrete.

Yes indeedy.

john

[Cognito]

Paul Renne strikes again - in a good way. So we are now pushing on the 300,000 year mark for H. sapiens. The article brings to mind one of the rebuttal arguments for Valsequillo - the technology found was too sophisticated at 250Kya to be valid. This article demonstrates otherwise.

The question I have is this: If it took the present Holocene for H. sapiens to expand its population from a few million to 6 billion, why didn't something similar happen in prior interstatials of 140Kya, 200Kya, or 240Kya?

[john]

Paul Renne strikes again - in a good way. So we are now pushing on the 300,000 year mark for H. sapiens. The article brings to mind one of the rebuttal arguments for Valsequillo - the technology found was too sophisticated at 250Kya to be valid. This article demonstrates otherwise.

The question I have is this: If it took the present Holocene for H. sapiens to expand its population from a few million to 6 billion, why didn't something similar happen in prior interstatials of 140Kya, 200Kya, or 240Kya?

Cognito -

Interesting question; I'm thinking about it.

And now something for you to consider.

We already know that Homo sap. and homo n. were contemporaneous

For quite a time.

Now we are pushing the boundary, if not already over it, of

Homo sap. and Homo h. being contemporaneous.

Not even to mention Homo floriensis.

The whole argument for cladistic ancestry is getting weaker and

Weaker, in my opinion, and the argument for

Subspeciation much stronger.

So, now a devil of a question.

Are each of the races mentioned above subspecies

Of subspecies, or are some, or all, descended

In the cladistic sense, from a single

Version of Homo e.?


Hoka hey

john