[_ Old Earth _] Is there proof we evolved from monkeys?

[Dave Slayer]

If you can't see the full image, click here:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/ ... nSmall.jpg

 

[Barbarian]

A more reasonable explanation is that other women who lived at the same time as mtMRCA did indeed reproduce and pass their genes down to living humans, but that their mitochondrial lineages have been lost over time, probably due to random events such as producing only male children. It is impossible to know to what extent these non-extant lineages have been lost or how much they differed from the mtDNA of our mtMRCA.

Like H.s.n.?

No. This would be a population that existed before humans diverged to form H. sapiens and H. neandertalis.

 

[Crying Rock]

No. This would be a population that existed before humans diverged to form H. sapiens and H. neandertalis.

What "would be a population that existed before humans diverged to form" H.s.s. and H.s.n.?

Are you referring to H. heidelbergensis:

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

I'm not sure I understand your point.

 

[Barbarian]

What "would be a population that existed before humans diverged to form" H.s.s. and H.s.n.?

Archaic Homo.

Are you referring to H. heidelbergensis:

Probably close to that. Maybe H. antecessor. More primitive than either H. sapiens or H. neandertalis. At some point, two species diverged.

 

[Crying Rock]

What "would be a population that existed before humans diverged to form" H.s.s. and H.s.n.?

Archaic Homo.

[quote:24udtuvc]Are you referring to H. heidelbergensis:

Probably close to that. Maybe H. antecessor. More primitive than either H. sapiens or H. neandertalis. At some point, two species diverged.[/quote:24udtuvc]

You're assuming H.s.s. and H.s.n are separate species. Cultural and nDNA evidence indicates that this is not the case.

 

[Barbarian]

You're assuming H.s.s. and H.s.n are separate species.

No. Inferring from evidence. Most people in paleontology and physical anthropology have concluded that the cultural and physical differences are too great to consider them to be the same species as we are.

The origin of modern humans and the fate of the Neanderthals are two of the most hotly debated topics in paleoanthropology (Stringer 1996). Recent developments in the archaeology of the Middle Paleolithic Levant, part of the East Mediterranean including southern Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and northern Egypt (fig.1), are dramatically changing our perception of Neanderthals. Once seen as dull-witted cavemen, new evidence suggests Neanderthals were intelligent, adaptable, and highly effective predators. Although many see Neanderthals as our possible ancestors, it is increasingly clear that they competed with early modern humans for tens of thousands of years in Europe and the Near East.

New research in Africa, Europe, and Asia suggests that the abrupt disappearance of the Neanderthals and the sudden appearance of early anatomically-modern humans throughout much of Western Eurasia after 47,000 BP is more than a coincidence. The last fifteen years in particular have seen flourishing scientific advances in areas such as improved radiometric dating techniques and the recent recovery of Neanderthal DNA. These are making it increasingly clear that the Levantine Neanderthals and early modern humans were probably different species, indirectly competing with each other in the same ecological niche. Further, the Levant appears to have shifted hands repeatedly between Neanderthal and early modern human occupations until around 47,000 BP, after which Neanderthal populations dwindled, culminating in their extinction by 28,000 BP. Concurrently, modern humans were expanding into western Eurasia, replacing Neanderthals along the way...

Seasonality, Settlement and Mobility Strategies: Seasonality studies indicate that Neanderthals and early modern humans used different mobility strategies (Lieberman 1998)...

Microscopic wear patterns on Levantine Middle Paleolithic triangular flakes, especially “Levallois points,†show they were used as armatures for thrusting spears (Shea 1988, 1997). At Umm el Tlel, Syria, a fragment of one such point was recently found embedded in a neck vertebra of a wild ass (Boeda et al. 1999). Thrusting spears are heavy weapons, and their brittle stone points would have to be replaced often. It seems reasonable to expect that groups specializing in partiucular larger game hunting, i.e., Neanderthals, used these and would have assembled larger numbers of suitable replacement points at their habitation sites than those (Homo sapiens) who used lighter weapons, such as sharpened wooden spears and clubs, against a wider range of prey species (Bleed 1986). And the archaeological record of the Middle Paleolithic Levant seems to show this...

Contrasts between Neanderthal and early modern human burials from the Levant provide a third line of evidence for behavioral differences...

The use of high-speed, low-mass projectile weapons, such as javelins, spearthrower darts, and arrows, is an important component of the Upper Paleolithic economic “revolution†(Knecht 1994) and appear in the early Upper Paleolithic of the Levant in the form of aerodynamic stone and bone points from Ksar Akil, Lebanon (Bergman 1981; Newcomer 1987).Weapons of this kind allow their users to kill targets from a safe distance, minimizing the risk of attacking large, dangerous mammals. Because these weapons depend more on throwing speed and aim than sheer physical force, juveniles and females can use them as effectively as adult males, allowing for a larger proportion of their population to participate in the large animal food quest. If early Upper Paleolithic modern humans migrating out of the African tropics were more experienced at using projectile weapons than Neanderthals or the Skhul/Qafzeh humans, then they would have had a crucial adaptive advantage...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 noted differences in n-DNA are merely one part of the evidence showing Neandertals to be a separate species.

 

[Crying Rock]

Crying Rock wrote:

You're assuming H.s.s. and H.s.n are separate species.

No. Inferring from evidence. Most people in paleontology and physical anthropology have concluded that the cultural and physical differences are too great to consider them to be the same species as we are.

Crying Rock wrote:

A lot of researchers are changing there minds and questioning previous assumptions.

Ever notice references to Neanderthals as H.s.n. (same species as H.s.s.)

Crying Rock quoted:

Take it up with Paabo:

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€Â

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 08222.html

Crying Rock quoted:

“…All of this has long been known and, to some extent, appreciated, but now there is a new possibility: that the Aurignacians, and indeed all people with EUP traditions, were not ‘Moderns’, but ‘Neanderthals’. In the final analysis the replacement advocates placed all their trust on the unassailability of the concept that the Aurignacian derives from their Moderns. They have for decades belaboured the cognitive sophistication evidenced by palaeoart and beads that could not possibly have anything to do with Neanderthals. If all this wonderful art were the work of Neanderthal descendents, the replacement model would be defeated on all counts: technology, culture, genetics and physical anthropology. So even if the retreating argument were to be now, perhaps the Aurignacians started out as a Neanderthaloid society, but by the time of Chauvet and Vogelherd (32 ka) their culture had become adopted by Moderns, that would still negate the integrity of the replacement model. If this ‘culture’ had been begun by Neanderthals, and then, half-way through, taken over by ‘culturally superior invading Moderns’, why should we assume the latter’s ‘superiority’? And at what specific point in time did the replacement occur?..â€Â

“…According to them, the people of the Aurignacian are ‘indistinguishable’ from us in terms of cognition, behaviour and cultural potential. Perhaps this is so, but what the evidence now shows is that the period from 45 to 28 ka BP has yielded dozens of Neanderthal remains in Europe, but no securely dated, unambiguous anatomically modern human remains. This point is reinforced by the occurrence of undisputed Neanderthal finds together with EUP lithic traditions at several sites, but no Moderns have so far been found in clear association with Aurignacian or any other EUP artefacts. Therefore the proposition that the Aurignacian and other Aurignacoid or EUP industries are traditions of Neanderthals or of their descendants is supported by evidence, the proposition that it is the culture of invading ‘Moderns’ is not…â€Â

The Mythical Moderns
Robert G. Bednarik
J World Prehist
DOI 10.1007/s10963-008-9009-8

The Barbarian quoted:

The origin of modern humans and the fate of the Neanderthals are two of the most hotly debated topics in paleoanthropology (Stringer 1996). Recent developments in the archaeology of the Middle Paleolithic Levant, part of the East Mediterranean including southern Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and northern Egypt (fig.1), are dramatically changing our perception of Neanderthals. Once seen as dull-witted cavemen, new evidence suggests Neanderthals were intelligent, adaptable, and highly effective predators. Although many see Neanderthals as our possible ancestors, it is increasingly clear that they competed with early modern humans for tens of thousands of years in Europe and the Near East.

New research in Africa, Europe, and Asia suggests that the abrupt disappearance of the Neanderthals and the sudden appearance of early anatomically-modern humans throughout much of Western Eurasia after 47,000 BP is more than a coincidence. The last fifteen years in particular have seen flourishing scientific advances in areas such as improved radiometric dating techniques and the recent recovery of Neanderthal DNA. These are making it increasingly clear that the Levantine Neanderthals and early modern humans were probably different species, indirectly competing with each other in the same ecological niche. Further, the Levant appears to have shifted hands repeatedly between Neanderthal and early modern human occupations until around 47,000 BP, after which Neanderthal populations dwindled, culminating in their extinction by 28,000 BP. Concurrently, modern humans were expanding into western Eurasia, replacing Neanderthals along the way...

Crying Rock wrote:

1996? “…the sudden appearance of early anatomically-modern humans throughout much of Western Eurasia after 47,000 BP is more than a coincidence…†. Yeah, more than coincidence. ;) There is no evidence for such an “invasion†prior to 28kya. Just cultural material that seemed too advanced for dumb ol’ H.s.n. to create:

Crying Rock quoted:

“…All of this has long been known and, to some extent, appreciated, but now there is a new possibility: that the Aurignacians, and indeed all people with EUP traditions, were not ‘Moderns’, but ‘Neanderthals’. In the final analysis the replacement advocates placed all their trust on the unassailability of the concept that the Aurignacian derives from their Moderns. They have for decades belaboured the cognitive sophistication evidenced by palaeoart and beads that could not possibly have anything to do with Neanderthals. If all this wonderful art were the work of Neanderthal descendents, the replacement model would be defeated on all counts: technology, culture, genetics and physical anthropology. So even if the retreating argument were to be now, perhaps the Aurignacians started out as a Neanderthaloid society, but by the time of Chauvet and Vogelherd (32 ka) their culture had become adopted by Moderns, that would still negate the integrity of the replacement model. If this ‘culture’ had been begun by Neanderthals, and then, half-way through, taken over by ‘culturally superior invading Moderns’, why should we assume the latter’s ‘superiority’? And at what specific point in time did the replacement occur?..â€Â

“…According to them, the people of the Aurignacian are ‘indistinguishable’ from us in terms of cognition, behaviour and cultural potential. Perhaps this is so, but what the evidence now shows is that the period from 45 to 28 ka BP has yielded dozens of Neanderthal remains in Europe, but no securely dated, unambiguous anatomically modern human remains. This point is reinforced by the occurrence of undisputed Neanderthal finds together with EUP lithic traditions at several sites, but no Moderns have so far been found in clear association with Aurignacian or any other EUP artefacts. Therefore the proposition that the Aurignacian and other Aurignacoid or EUP industries are traditions of Neanderthals or of their descendants is supported by evidence, the proposition that it is the culture of invading ‘Moderns’ is not…â€Â

The Mythical Moderns
Robert G. Bednarik
J World Prehist
DOI 10.1007/s10963-008-9009-8

“…In his office at the University of Bordeaux, d’Errico hands me a chunk of manganese dioxide. It feels silky, like soapstone. “Toward the end of their time on earth,†he says, “Neanderthals were using technology as advanced as that of contemporary anatomically modern humans and were using symbolism in much the same way…â€Â

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... c=y&page=6

The Barbarian quoted:

“…recent recovery of Neanderthal DNA. These are making it increasingly clear that the Levantine Neanderthals and early modern humans were probably different species…â€Â

Crying Rock quoted:

Take it up with Paabo:

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€Â

The Barbarian quoted:

Microscopic wear patterns on Levantine Middle Paleolithic triangular flakes, especially “Levallois points,†show they were used as armatures for thrusting spears (Shea 1988, 1997). At Umm el Tlel, Syria, a fragment of one such point was recently found embedded in a neck vertebra of a wild ass (Boeda et al. 1999). Thrusting spears are heavy weapons, and their brittle stone points would have to be replaced often. It seems reasonable to expect that groups specializing in partiucular larger game hunting, i.e., Neanderthals, used these and would have assembled larger numbers of suitable replacement points at their habitation sites than those (Homo sapiens) who used lighter weapons, such as sharpened wooden spears and clubs, against a wider range of prey species (Bleed 1986). And the archaeological record of the Middle Paleolithic Levant seems to show this...

Crying Rock quoted/ wrote:

“…Thrusting spears are heavy weapons, and their brittle stone points would have to be replaced often. It seems reasonable to expect that groups specializing in particular larger game hunting, i.e., Neanderthals, used these and would have assembled larger numbers of suitable replacement points at their habitation sites …â€Â

Sounds like Native American Clovis tech. Wonder if they were Neanderthal:

http://www.ele.net/forgot/forgotten.pdf

See Table 1

Any DNA from Clovis tech utilizing populations?

Neanderthal points:

http://www.lda-lsa.de/typo3temp/pics/094fae3f36.jpg
http://www.spessartprojekt.de/bilder/fo ... sch_0b.jpg
http://www.spessartprojekt.de/spessart/ ... mensch.php
http://www.uf.phil.uni-erlangen.de/samm ... le_001.jpg

“…According to them, the people of the Aurignacian are ‘indistinguishable’ from us in terms of cognition, behaviour and cultural potential. Perhaps this is so, but what the evidence now shows is that the period from 45 to 28 ka BP has yielded dozens of Neanderthal remains in Europe, but no securely dated, unambiguous anatomically modern human remains. This point is reinforced by the occurrence of undisputed Neanderthal finds together with EUP lithic traditions at several sites, but no Moderns have so far been found in clear association with Aurignacian or any other EUP artefacts. Therefore the proposition that the Aurignacian and other Aurignacoid or EUP industries are traditions of Neanderthals or of their descendants is supported by evidence, the proposition that it is the culture of invading ‘Moderns’ is not…â€Â

The Mythical Moderns
Robert G. Bednarik
J World Prehist
DOI 10.1007/s10963-008-9009-8

Aurignacian cultural remains:

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,898579,00.jpg
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files. ... upart.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... fendue.jpg

The Barbarian wrote:

The noted differences in n-DNA are merely one part of the evidence showing Neandertals to be a separate species.

Crying Rock quoted/ wrote:

What differences?

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€Â

 

[Barbarian]

“…Thrusting spears are heavy weapons, and their brittle stone points would have to be replaced often. It seems reasonable to expect that groups specializing in particular larger game hunting, i.e., Neanderthals, used these and would have assembled larger numbers of suitable replacement points at their habitation sites …â€Â

Sounds like Native American Clovis tech. Wonder if they were Neanderthal:

Not likely:
Clovis points are the diagnostic projectile point associated with the North American Clovis culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_point

Clovis points are precisely what H. neandertalis weapons are not; projectiles.

 

[Barbarian]

the sudden appearance of early anatomically-modern humans throughout much of Western Eurasia after 47,000 BP is more than a coincidence…†. Yeah, more than coincidence. ;) There is no evidence for such an “invasion†prior to 28kya. Just cultural material that seemed too advanced for dumb ol’ H.s.n. to create:

Don't think so. After all, scientists had pointed to the occasional use of more modern tools by Neandertals. And I don't think you're accurately representing the consensus by suggesting that scientists thought Neandertals were dumb. They were just culturally much more conservative than our own species.

Perhaps instead of trying to argue by quote, you should show us the data that shows Neandertal DNA is within normal human variation.

 

[Crying Rock]

Crying Rock quoted/ wrote:

Excavations have yielded many Clovis spear points and bone or ivory foreshafts. Bone spear point holders have also been found, but no wooden spear shafts have survived. However, archaeologists believe that most Clovis projectile points are too large to have been used as arrowheads, and must have been intended for spears. No Clovis atlatls have been found, but the spear-throwing technique was in use at least 8,000 years ago and there is no reason to think Clovis people could not have used it. Indeed, it's hard to imagine bringing down an animal the size of a mammoth without being able to generate the kinds of impact forces that atlatls made possible.

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1406/features/huntingf.htm

Unless you thrusted the spear versus projecting it. H.s.n. did it all the time. And the foreshafts would allow for rapid reload: sink one in, retrieve the spear, and mount another Clovis tipped foreshaft, sink another, etc…4-5 of these Clovis tipped foreshafts per person could easily been carried along on hunts. 4-5 fully equipped spears would be more cumbersome. If these guys were getting close enough in to retrieve their spears, then why not thrust?

The Barbarian quoted:

“…Thrusting spears are heavy weapons, and their brittle stone points would have to be replaced often. It seems reasonable to expect that groups specializing in particular larger game hunting, i.e., Neanderthals, used these and would have assembled larger numbers of suitable replacement points at their habitation sites …â€Â

Crying Rock wrote:

Sounds like Native American Clovis tech. Wonder if they were Neanderthal:

The Barbarian quoted:

Not likely:

Clovis points are the diagnostic projectile point associated with the North American Clovis culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_point

Clovis points are precisely what H. neandertalis weapons are not; projectiles.

Crying Rock wrote/ quoted:

"...Ivory and bone atlatl hooks of Clovis age have been archeologically recovered..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_point

Reference?

Crying Rock wrote/ quoted:

How do you know Clovis points were projected? Any Clovis atlatls documented?

Why could Clovis points not have been thrusted?

http://www.terrierman.com/mammoth.JPG

Crying Rock wrote/ quoted:

“…the sudden appearance of early anatomically-modern humans throughout
much of Western Eurasia after 47,000 BP is more than a coincidence…†.

Yeah, more than coincidence. ;)

There is no evidence for such an “invasion†prior to 28kya. Just cultural material

that seemed too advanced for dumb ol’ H.s.n. to create:

The Barbarian wrote:

Don't think so. After all, scientists had pointed to the occasional use of more modern tools by Neandertals. And I don't think you're accurately representing the consensus by suggesting that scientists thought Neandertals were dumb. They were just culturally much more conservative than our own species.

Crying Rock wrote:

And…

The Barbarian wrote:

Perhaps instead of trying to argue by quote, you should show us the data that shows Neandertal

DNA is within normal human variation.

Crying Rock wrote/ quoted:

Like me, you’ll have to wait for the report. However, I don’t think Paabo would have made this

statement without the data to back it up:

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€Â

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 08222.html

 

[Barbarian]

I doubt if archaeologists would be impressed by your reasoning. We have no evidence for Neandertals using projectiles. And we have abundant evidence for anatomically modern humans using them. Why would you suppose they would be using Neandertal tactics?

Same thing?

 

[Crying Rock]

The Barbarian wrote:

I doubt if archaeologists would be impressed by your reasoning.

Archaeologists? They’re just a bunch of dummies that like to play in the dirt. ;)

However, if one was not impressed with my reasoning, I do believe it would destroy my inner child. ;)

The Barbarian wrote:

We have no evidence for Neandertals using projectiles.

Nor do we for Clovis tech utilizing populations.

The Barbarian wrote:

And we have abundant evidence for anatomically modern humans using them.

Do we have abundant evidence for Clovis tech utilizing populations using them? Show

me one atlatl found in direct association with a Clovis artifact.

The Barbarian wrote:

Why would you suppose they would be using Neandertal tactics?

Because it’s an effective technique for bringing down big game…penetration through

thick hide. Impaling up the anus works well also.

http://www.terrierman.com/mammoth.JPG

The Barbarian wrote:

http://piclib.nhm.ac.uk/piclib/webimage ... 29_med.jpg

http://www.thefurtrapper.com/images/Clovis%20Point.jpg

Same thing?

No.

Same thing:

http://www.lda-lsa.de/typo3temp/pics/094fae3f36.jpg

http://www.spessartprojekt.de/bilder/fo ... sch_0b.jpg

http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter54/t ... utrean.jpg

http://www.donsmaps.com/images11/frlhlaurelpoint.jpg

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedric ... oheads.jpg

Please cite DNA recovered from unambiguous Solutrean or Clovis specimens.

Homework assignment:

Read Tony Baker’s article:

I Forgot to Remember to Forget

http://www.ele.net/forgot/forgotten.htm

Report back with the central theme of the article.

 

[Barbarian]

Archaeologists? They’re just a bunch of dummies that like to play in the dirt. ;)

However, if one was not impressed with my reasoning, I do believe it would destroy my inner child. ;)

Running out of matrial, um?

Barbarian observes:
We have no evidence for Neandertals using projectiles.

Nor do we for Clovis tech utilizing populations.

? :D

Barbarian observes:
And we have abundant evidence for anatomically modern humans using them.

Do we have abundant evidence for Clovis tech utilizing populations using them?

Yes. As you see, they are projectile points, complete with a grove for hafting them.

me one atlatl found in direct association with a Clovis artifact.

Your argument then, is that there could be no projectile weapons, if they had no atlatls? Seriously?

Barbarian asks:
Why would you suppose they would be using Neandertal tactics?

Because it’s an effective technique for bringing down big game…penetration through
thick hide. Impaling up the anus works well also.

Note that neolithic tribes of Africans relied on projectiles. There's a way to test this, BTW. The large number of healed injuries in Neandertals are consistent with direct contact with large animals. Do you see that in any population of anatomically modern humans?

Please cite DNA recovered from unambiguous Solutrean or Clovis specimens.

You're arguing that Clovis points were made by Neandertals? :crazy

Homework assignment:

Read Tony Baker’s article:

Report back with the central theme of the article.

I'm thinking that if you don't know enough about it to explain it here, you probably don't know if it's right or wrong.

 

[Crying Rock]

Barbarian wrote:

We have no evidence for Neandertals using projectiles.

Crying Rock wrote:

Nor do we for Clovis tech utilizing populations.

Barbarian wrote:

And we have abundant evidence for anatomically modern humans using them.

[quote:1f5c6rj5]

Crying Rock wrote:

Do we have abundant evidence for Clovis tech utilizing populations using them?

Barbarian wrote:

Yes. As you see, they are projectile points, complete with a grove for hafting them.

Crying Rock wrote:

How do you know Clovis points were projected points? Are you telling me Neanderthal

points weren’t hafted to their thrusting spears? How’d they stay on?


[quote:1f5c6rj5]

Crying Rock wrote:

Show me one atlatl found in direct association with a Clovis artifact.

Barbarian wrote:

Your argument then, is that there could be no projectile weapons, if they had no atlatls?

Seriously?

Crying Rock wrote:

Projectile weapons to bring down mammoth and other big game, yes, seriously. You’d

either have to have atlatls or thrust the spears to penetrate the thick hide.

See:

Frison, George C.
1989 Experimental Use of Clovis Weaponry and Tools on African Elephants. American Antiquity, 54(4): 766-784.

Barbarian asks:

Why would you suppose they would be using Neandertal tactics?

Crying Rock wrote:

Because it’s an effective technique for bringing down big game…penetration through

thick hide. Impaling up the anus works well also.

Barbarian wrote:

Note that neolithic tribes of Africans relied on projectiles. There's a way to test this, BTW. The large number of healed injuries in Neandertals are consistent with direct contact with large animals. Do you see that in any population of anatomically modern humans?

Crying Rock wrote:

Got any Clovis skeletons? How about Solutrean? Why are you insistent these populations were H.s.s. versus H.s.n.?

Crying Rock wrote:

Please cite DNA recovered from unambiguous Solutrean or Clovis specimens.

Barbarian wrote:

You're arguing that Clovis points were made by Neandertals? :crazy

Crying Rock wrote:

It’s not out of the question, imo:

“…To determine how far to the east Neanderthals ranged, we determined mitochondrial
DNA (mtDNA) sequences from hominid remains found in Uzbekistan and in the Altai region of southern Siberia. Here we show that the DNA sequences from these fossils fall within the European Neanderthal mtDNA variation. Thus, the geographic range of Neanderthals is likely to have extended at least 2,000km further to the east than commonly assumed…â€Â

Neanderthals in central Asia and Siberia
Krause et al. (2007)

From where do you think the ancestral populations of Clovis tech utilizing populations came?

Crying Rock wrote:

Homework assignment:

Read Tony Baker’s article:

Report back with the central theme of the article.

Barbarian wrote:

I'm thinking that if you don't know enough about it to explain it here, you probably don't

know if it's right or wrong.

Crying Rock wrote:

Here, I’ll spoon feed you, though I think you ought to read the article yourself and come

up with your own conclusions:

Tony Baker argues that Clovis bifaces evolved from bipointed bifaces. Solutrean and

Neanderthal bifaces are both bipointed:

http://www.lda-lsa.de/typo3temp/pics/094fae3f36.jpg

http://www.spessartprojekt.de/bilder/fo ... sch_0b.jpg

http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter54/t ... utrean.jpg

http://www.donsmaps.com/images11/frlhlaurelpoint.jpg

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedric ... oheads.jpg

http://www.ele.net/forgot/forgotten.htm

[/quote:1f5c6rj5][/quote:1f5c6rj5]

 

[Barbarian]

Tony Baker argues that Clovis bifaces evolved from bipointed bifaces. Solutrean and

Neanderthal bifaces are both bipointed:

Neandertals made the only bipointed bifaces? No, it turns out they didn't. So... we can either assume that they were made by H. sapiens like some other examples were, or we can imagine some sort of relict population making it to the Southwest, without leaving any traces, and then shifting the tool kit to Clovis style.

Seems a stretch to me. :gah

 

[GojuBrian]

I can make weapons, climb trees, and I do like bananas!!!

Just a quick break.....back to topic.

p.s. I'm enjoying the conversation, but truthfully,it's over my head...so I'm learning.

 

[Crying Rock]

Tony Baker argues that Clovis bifaces evolved from bipointed bifaces. Solutrean and

Neanderthal bifaces are both bipointed:

Seems a stretch to me. :gah

Understood, but we can't rule it out until we find some skeletal material directly associated with Clovis technology. Same goes for Solutrean technology. In my eye, some of the Neanderthal bifaces look quite similar to Solutrean bifaces. And some experts, like Bradley and Stanford, think Clovis may have come from Solutrean. Again, skeletal material is going to be the key to figuring out this problem.

 

[Crying Rock]

I can make weapons, climb trees, and I do like bananas!!!

Just a quick break.....back to topic.

p.s. I'm enjoying the conversation, but truthfully,it's over my head...so I'm learning.

Glad you're enjoying the discussion.

Over your head? We're just making this stuff up! :D

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian suggests it's a bit odd to suggest that the Neandertals disappeared from the Old World, moved without a trace to the New World, and then set up an entirely new toolkit which is more like those made by anatomically modern humans)

Understood, but we can't rule it out until we find some skeletal material directly associated with Clovis technology.

Can't rule out space aliens, either. Until we find some evidence, it could be anatomically modern humans, little green men, or Neandertals. Of course, the fact that the indigenous people of the Americas are genetically linked to the indigenous people of northern asia does tend to throw some doubt on Alley Oop or E.T.

 

[Crying Rock]

The Barbarian wrote:

(Barbarian suggests it's a bit odd to suggest that the Neandertals disappeared from the Old World, moved without a trace to the New World, and then set up an entirely new toolkit which is more like those made by anatomically modern humans)

Crying rock wrote:

I understand your objections. However, there is no predecessor to the Clovis point anywhere in the world, with the possible, controversial exception of concaved based, fluted, lanceolate form points found in Solutrean context at Laugerie-Haute:

A Fluted Point from the Old World Author(s): Philip E. L. Smith Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 28, No. 3, (Jan., 1963), pp. 397-399

Again, no DNA or skeletal material associated with the artifacts.

Crying rock wrote:

Understood, but we can't rule it out until we find some skeletal material directly associated with Clovis technology.

The Barbarian wrote:

Can't rule out space aliens, either.

Crying rock wrote:

Yeah, but that’s strawmanish (technical term). We’re talking about Neanderthals, who

made it to the same region in Siberia from where many geneticists think several, if not

all, extant Native American mtDNA Hgs are derived: the Altai region of southern Siberia. And

they made it there at least by 37,750ya, possibly several thousand years earlier.

The Barbarian wrote:

Until we find some evidence, it could be anatomically modern humans, little green men,

or Neandertals.

Crying rock wrote:

True. And I contend there is some evidence:

1. Both Neanderthals and Clovis tech utilizing populations were megafauna hunters.

2. No evidence exists that either projected their spears, so the idea they both thrusted their spears has not been falsified.

3. Both adapted to cold weather environments across vast geographical ranges.

4. Both used prepared core techniques.

5. Both created stone floors:

http://www.gaultschool.org/files/IMG_38.jpg


“…We have a stone floor ten cm. thick and just a little over two meters square - right hand corners in the middle of a gravelless clay stratigraphy with Clovis tools and debris scattered on and around it. It serves a purpose similar to a tent's ground sheet - getting them up off the rising damp from the clay - and may have been simply a platform or could have been the floor of a structure. Either way it's not the kind of thing you build if you're just passing through…Artificial stone floors, or platforms have a surprisingly long, albeit intermittent and scarce, presence in the archaeological record, including Wolf's Cave in Finland, a possible Neanderthal site, at La Ferassie, in France, as well as Dahe, in China, all exhibiting Mousterian-type lithic assemblages…â€Â

http://remotecentral.blogspot.com/2007/ ... pdate.html

6. Both created art:

“…I now have 108 incised stones from Gault spanning almost all time periods represented there including 14 with strong Clovis provenience. These are not simply stones with incised lines but mostly intricate designs similar to those found worldwide back at least 75,000 years. Paired parallel lines, paired zigzags and intricate herringbone patterns are found on both small pieces of limestone but also (1/3 of them) on chert cortex where the nodule was later broken up. You actually have similar items in Britain…"

http://remotecentral.blogspot.com/2007/ ... pdate.html


7. Both created bifacial lanceolate bifaces.

8. It has been argued that Clovis tech evolved from bipointed bifaces. The closest old world location for bipointed bifaces that preceded American bipointed bifaces and Clovis points are Germany (Neanderthal bifaces) and Iberia (Solutrean bifaces). From there you have to go to Africa.

9.

Etc…

I’m not contending this is a lock for my argument, but it is intriguing, IMO.

The Barbarian wrote:

Of course, the fact that the indigenous people of the Americas are genetically linked to the indigenous people of northern asia does tend to throw some doubt on Alley Oop…

Crying rock wrote:

Define Northern Asia. What shared DNA are there between these Northern Asians and

Native Americans that lived ca. 13kya? What was the genetic makeup of Clovis tech

utilizing populations. Siberian populations do possess mtDNA Hg A of American origin

and Japanese populations possess mtDNA Hg C of American origin. We have to

remember Beringia was a two way street.