What is the cause of existence?

Luck has a very unscientific effect on human survival.

Geology, too, of course--geology's a bitch!

You actually READ one of my posts??? Now that's a treat. Which one was it? I must print it and frame it at once.


30,000 ago was still the last ice age if memory serves...

Very few living animals leave fossiles that we can discover, and we've not discovered all the fossiles they left... The number of 'traces' we've discovered is not IMO a good predictor of how many people there was. Even when you factor in stone tools finds (for human species), prehistoric demographics remain on flimsy ground.

Any animal population goes through ups and downs depending on climate. But the important point is: in good times, populations rise, until they reach a maximum allowed by their environment. After this point, starving and fighting takes care of the demographic issue. I simplify a bit but an equilibrium is reached, whereby packs of lions will tend to live X km from one another, defending a rather vast territory necessary for their survival as apex predators. It's what The Territorial Imperative by Robert Ardrey is about. Humans must in good times have reached the same equilibrium point. Did you know that hunter-gatherers need much more space to sustain themselves than agarian, or even nomad societies? I don't remember the figures but it's orders of magnitude more. And modern and historical hunter-gatherers are/were often at war with one another...

Finally, let's have a close look at the timeline:

Homo sapiens emerged about 195,000 years ago in Africa. Though these humans were modern in anatomy, their lifestyle changed very little from their contemporaries, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals. They used the same crude Mousterian stone tools.

Something changed about 50,000 years ago, i.e. almost 150,000 years after H. sapiens appeared on the scene: a marked increase in the diversity of artifacts, first noticeable in Africa, including projectile points, engraving tools, knife blades, and drilling and piercing tools. These new tools appear rapidely, and are strongly associated in the archeological record with Homo sapiens. This -50,000 date is the begining of a period called upper paleolothic. It's also the begining of the end for neanderthal. 

Modern humans is believed to have first migrated to Europe 40–43,000 years ago, taking this new technology with him. 

Neanderthal went instinct around 30,000 years ago. 

For about 150,000 years, H. Sapiens stayed in Africa, and never encroched into neanderthal territory. A few millenia after they invent a radically new technology, giving them a strong edge over neanderthal, they invade all of Europe, and neanderthal disappears from the scene. Coincidence?

I don't understand this.

While it is true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, noting how sparse remains are does nothing to defend a claim that human "killer apes" exterminated h.n. The important "tool kit" changes of 50,000 ybp, the Mousterian period, were changes in the tool kit of Neanderthals. Furthermore, the claim about the population of humans declining to 1000 members or fewer 30,000 years ago is based on genetic studies, which you would have understood had you done anything more than just skim what i took the time and care to write yesterday. The most significant absence of evidence here is not the lack of remains, but the total lack of any evidence for your claims.

There is a period in the late Mousterian when early modern human cultures began to flourish, and those are generally understood by modern paleoanthropologists to have been the restult of early modern humans (h.s.s.) adding the Mousterian tool kit to their own technological culture. As Neanderthals disappeared, h.s.s. began using and improving upon the tool kit h.n. had used in their final days. The Châtelperronian culture of France/Spain is considered to have represented the overlap between h.n. and h.s.s. Perhaps you don't agree with those assessments, but i'll give far more credence to the considered opinions of professional paleoanthropologists than i will to your ipse dixit contentions. I have no reason to consider you expert in these matters.

So, essentially, at a time when it is estimated that there were 1000 or fewer humans in all of Eurasia, whose daily existence was given over to hunting, collecting food and storing that food, you allege that they ran around in bands slaughtering h.n. and sasquatch and whatever other crypto-species you mentioned in that silly post. Even had there been 10,000 human individuals, as some suggest, that's a hell of a lot of ground for them to have covered at the same time as they needed to hunt, gather and store food.

There's a problem with evidence here alright--and it's your problem. All you've done is made claims, and haven't even offered any compelling logic for them.

All those terms like Mousterian,Magdelenian, Levalloisian, and Clactonian were part ofMortillet's "hand axe" system of circularly defining cultural advances in human populations based upon a lot of crap science. Mortillet lived ina time during which reliable and detailed chronostratigraphy was unavailable. SO the conclusions of ages of artifacts were based also upon pre assigned "senses of ascribed ages". I think the last guy that used the terms was Herbert Wendt in his Ich Suchte Adam Detailed chronostratigraphy (not to mention the hunt for the elusive DNA samples that are not degraded) has revealed that several of the caves that contain such things as graffiti and objects, may have actually been NEanderthal dwellings. Also, since Post Pleistocene sea rise has obliterated much of the dwelling sites in coastal plain areas (like Doggerland), we don't know much about whats out in the surf . I see that even with cultural artifacts like cave painting, they've had to change the attribution for the pantings from the "magdelenian to "clactonian" , Meaning that, based upon good chemical stratigraphy, the cave paintings were actually done by Neanderthals.
Im always having my flabber freshly gasted almost monthly as I see a new article reassessing some old site that was Salutrean or Magdelanian but is now further recessed back in time to a comfortable NEanderthal dwelling.
I know that many of the terms had been plopped about in the 50's to show that there was a beginning of an understanding that many of these terms actually described contemporary overlapping artifact sites. Still, they wanted to develop a progression of "implicit stratigraphy" based on a time line that assigned many cultural advances to periods associated with known European glaciation stages
Clactonian=brutish Neanderthalensis whereas mid and late Mindell Riss warm periods and then Wurm glaciation were Levalloisian/ and Solutrean(based on type section stratigraphy)).
What new data shows is that several areas were often ice free in the Riss times and also, during theRiss/Wurm warm periods, there was a nice diversity of populations with a free interaction of skills (All except flake v "core" knapping techniques)

My journals have had a number of articles about fresh geological looks at some classic archeology sites and while most stay the way they were first assigned, a few (especially those in Greece and Israel, are being pushed back in time due to advances in alpha tracking and fluorescence techniques (C14 has had some problems in the ,50 K ybp accuracy due to the amounts of CO3 contamination from cave deposits themselves)

Were Neanderthals really some of the earliest "Airbrush artists"?, and what else were they capable of that we have always say that they weren't?

Don't ask me, I have trubble keeping up with my own literature

You brought up the HArdy Weinberg expansion which seemed to be something that you were basing your conclusions that 1-2% gene frequency of Neanderthal genes within European genomes was miniscule. I merely was trying to say that such a conclusion based on the binomial expansion will always violate the basis under which the HArdy Weinberg expansion were even used in population genetics

Human genetics has NEVER been in HArdy Weinberg equilibrium (Did I say NEVER? ). Mostly because we violate so many of the bases from Which HW is valuable as a predictor.


Our ancient populations were hardly "infinite in xtent" Human populations boomed and crashed all through geologic time.We only know of a few " genetic bottlenecks" that can be proven because ancient DNA (even osteocalcin substitutional analyses, ) has degraded substantially to use old fossils

Genes are not fixed in our species because we aren't an animal that has a "home range" We **** up the bases of HW because we are all Sagittarian in our inability to "Stay put"

HW doesn't work because itCANNOT account for evolution or the introduction (or deletion) of new genes. Inbreeding with Nenaderthals had inserted some new genic complements (NANOG -b, inverted NANOG, etc). When the NEanderthals were removed and no longer available to interbreed, the genic base was removed from the breeding populations and therefore the predicted HArdy Weinberg expansion would actually OVERESTIMATE the rate of decline of these genes

HW is not used for the entire genome as your discussion was based upon.

I took my genetics several decades ago, and while we use genetics in mining (tracing extremophilic bacteria in subsurface mine plumes) Im no expert . However, the percentage decline in the frequency of alleles within a populations genome has gotta be self evident when an introduced set of genes is removed but that the basic population expands.

Well, i think that although Mousterian may not have been reliably dated, it still accurately describes a tool culture. I think Neanderthal has been given a bad name for more than a century, and the assumptions which have been made about them have started from a "nasty, brutish and short" perspective (to mangle a Hobbes quote). The remains found at La Chapelle-aux-Saints were taken as a type by Vallois and Boule, but modern forensic examination has shown that they are the remains of a fairly old man (mid- to late-40s) with chronic, debilitating arthritis, completely discrediting their conclusion that h.n. were ape-like with an ape-like gait. From that, they assumed a simian intelligence. The stereotype, however, persists. The Mousterian tool kit dates to about 300,000 ybp and although the pace of change was glacial, they improved the kit over time. There have also been finds of iron pyrite nodules, heavily scored, which imply their use for fire-starting. Examinations of finds from sites investigated earlier have also contained such nodules which were ignored in the past. We still use the word Neanderthal as an insult, implying stupidity and brusishness. I don't think the stereotype is at all warranted and is, as i say, a relic of the Boule-Vallois assumptions.

I think the most significant evidence is the relative paucity of their larder. There is a phenomenon known as protein starvation, when people have all the meat they can eat, but little to no fat and no anti-oxidants, vitamins and minerals from fruit of vegetable sources. Even without the obvious debilitating effects of scurvy, protein starvation can leave people with a sense of being constantly hungry, and seriously impair their energy resources. This has been exhibited in historical times in the experience of the Royal Navy, the United States Navy and the United States Army (which conducted many early exploratory expeditions in North America). The Lewis and Clark expedition was in the protein starvation stage when the finally crossed the Bitterroot and descended the Columbia River to the Pacific coast. After wintering on the banks of the Columbia, with game scarce, they were facing real starvation with even meat in short supply.

This leads me to my speculation (and i claim no more for it) that over time h.n.'s relatively poor larder meant that they suffered all the debilifating effects of protein starvation in late winder and early spring every year. The larders of h.s.s. were full not just of meat, but of fruit, grain and vegetables stored effectively to tide them over the winter and into spring. Game hunted in late winter and early spring has already used up their stored fat, and do little to mitigate protein starvation. So, i speculate that although initially well-adapted, h.n. over time dealt far less effectively to the glaciation events for which h.s.s. proved better prepared. Over a very long period of time (more than 100,000 years) this could mean that h.n. moved very slowly from a condition of live births outrunning deaths to a condition of deaths outrunning live births, which would spell slow death for the species.

This set me thinking of a story I read about archaeologists uncovering the remains of a massive bonfire, and that it dated back to a time before humans had learned to make fire. They knew it's value however, which was why the bonfire had been kept burning for generations.
I don't remember where I read it, and I can find no mention of it now, and I just thought I'd ask. Have you heard of anything like this?

No, Boss, i've not heard of that.

Kalamakia cave of S Greece on the mani peninsula has yielded Neanderthal settlement artifacts that compare to those of later Hs types of Uluzian technologies.(Like they were learning). The artifacts in the lower strat levels were over 75K ybp and upper levels from 37K ybp. The artifacts also showed examples of better use of resources like seafood(shell middens), plant materials and nuts. The technology graded upward from Mousterian (core) styes of flakes to Uluian with actual pressure flake indocations.

I don't think we know as much about Neanderthals as we think. Whenever I see one of these artifact piles here weve gotta reassess just how advanced they may have been, Id like to know more about whether there were any evidences of asociations with Hss?

Its no different than our own N Ameriacn cultures defined by going from PAleo through transitional to woodland and upper woodland cultures.

We ned to lay all this **** side by side and really scrutinize and "dig" for accurate dates an try to assess wffwct os migrating Hss's around the NEanderthals.
Whenever I see artifacts that "Blend" cultures ( things like actual Neanderthal cave paintings or the pressure flaking in Levallois technology that was supposed to be Mousterian).
"It wonders me", and as a closet stratigrapher, Id like to see these "time lins" get filled in mo betta.

No need to badmouth apes... I am talking of modern human beings, a species known to hunt other species to extinction, and to kill his fellow man by the trainload.


These is mumbo-jumbo archeology, misunderstood and misrepresented bits and pieces from wikipedia, not the "opinion of professional paleoanthropologists".

The Mousterian technology, widely associated with Neanderthal (but also used by modern humans from circa 150,000), starts around 200,000 bp and ends, like Neanderthal, around 30,000 bp. Javelins were a big part of the armory. There were also axes, scrappers and sometimes semi-light projectile heads obtained through the Levallois technique, like in the Châtelperronian culture. This is Mousterian:
www.bing.com/images/search?q=mousterian

The technologies that gave Homo sapiens a strong competitive edge against Mousterian techniques and those humans who used them, including neanderthal, and that appears circa 50,000 bp, is the next big thing: Aurigancian, characterized by much finer tools and weapons, allowing lighter projectiles (arrows or smaller spears) and all sorts of things made from ivory or bones: fishing hooks, needles, spearthrowers, statuettes, etc.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Aurignacian

http://www.lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/olivebrmiscellaneoustoolssm.jpg

The combination of spearthrowers and lighter missiles gave our ancestors then a weapon system that was lighter, easier to carry, easier to produce in large quantities, and with a similar or better range and precision than javelins, the arm of choice of neanderthal. Or so goes the theory...

The fact is that this new Aurignacian technology is strongly correlated with Sapiens in the archeological record, and concomitant with the invasion of Europe by Sapiens and the disappearance of Neanderthal...


I don't believe these figures, certainly not the lower ones. Populations go up and down. I've already explained that hunter-gatherers need a lot of space to survive and that, as any species, they would have filled up their ecological space given sufficient good times... Fishing and better hunting could have led to a demographic explosion of sorts among Sapiens, which would explain the whole movement of Sapiens out of Africa.

In the end, occasional violence between groups with asymetrical technology is just one plausible explanation. It doesn't need to be the only factor in Neanderthal's extinction, but ruling it out entirely is quite unwise IMO.

After all, you guys didn't shoot all the American natives did you? Diseases and displacement and lack of hunting grounds did most of the trick in the Wild West.... with the occasional war.

The phrase was coined by a noted ethologist of hominid and hominim species

You are accusing one member of doing what you yourself are doing.
Do you know when and where "throwing" projectile hd been clarly established in the cultures??

Where was the atlatl first used?

Do you have any idea how many individuals are estimated to have been on the planet for < say every 20K yers after Toba,"terminal Ice out" and pre Holocene inundations of coastal plain areas?



Itd be nice to have a discussion without nme calling. Im not an expert in any of these areas but I am field geologist versed in chronostratigraphy of NIKW glaciation (I use this in lg deposit mining for Ti). We alo use NA of acidophilc bacteria and diatoms to trace the extent of dissociation "plumes" that carry dissolved noble metals. SO answering some of the questions that seem to suggest that the worlds human population was not toolarge over several tens of millennia , AND Some technologies seem to have melded in a fashion that suggests cooperstion and mentoring and not killing off.

Theres a cartoon writer named Vendramini whose taken on a hypotheis of deracination of the NEanderthals by Hsi and Hss. However, hes been shown to be kinda off his orbit because he has no credibility in forensic reconstruction of fcial structures of Neanderthals and all those with the training and experience don't say nice things about him

Posting images of stone tools is your form of mumbo-jumbo, eh? You may well despise Wikipedia, i don't really care. However, if you care to consult any source about the Toba eruption which took place some time between 69,000 and 77,000 ybp, and read about the genetic bottleneck hypothesis, one of the sidebar pieces of information will be that genetic studies suggest a human population of between 1000 and 10,000 individuals. With the Eurasian land mass having an area in excess of 54,750,000 square kilometers, and bending the figures in your favor, half that landmass under ice, that's still well over 2500 square kilometers per person. The glaciation, by the way, covered no where near half the Eurasian landmass. It is also very unlikely that were as many as 10,000 humans on the scene then. But even if there were, you obviously have no conception of the scale of the land mass being used to support a very, very small population. Even a band of hunter gatherers with as few as 20 individuals will have had far more space than they need in the 50,000 square kilometers available to them. Not only do you apparently not know anything about paleoanthropology, your math sucks, too.

Basically, what's going on here is that you don't like me (oh dear, my social live is over), and you can't abide being contradicted. As you continue to insist on your poorly considered, off the cuff remark, while providing zero evidence for it, i'm done with this. If you actually come up with some substance, maybe i'll return. I don't look for that to happen any time soon.

So you only have sneers and insults, and no evidence. You've been arguing for argument's sake and not because you actually have a case. Have a nice day, Bubba.

That is true, because there are selection pressures and also some random drift for small populations.


Errr... no. Many species are on the run and that has never mixed up their genes.


Well, that may be counter-intuitive but my point stands. Genes that are in you don't degenerate that much. You pass them on to your kids pretty much intact. Your skin DNA can mutate and does, often, but your gamettes, your "seed", is better protected than that. Or parenthood would be even more full of surprises...

I agree the % of genes of neanderthalian origin may have drifted up or down a bit over the ages but not necessarily that much, unless these genes were providing a disadvantage (or an advantage) in its bearers' life and reproductive chances.

I LOVE you honey, don't say things like that, you are ruining my heart...

Wouldn't that be nice?

This map should give you an idea of population density in Europe during aurignacian:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Aurignacian_culture_map-en.svg

(i can use Wikipediea, too)

It would be nice if you used anything to support your so-far unsubstantiated claim. To this point, nothing.