Posted on 02/26/2006 3:25:01 AM PST by Pharmboy
Maybe they just didn't have time to get to know each other.
The question of what Neanderthals and Homo sapiens might have done on cold nights in their caves, if they happened to get together and the fire burned down to embers, has intrigued scientists since the 19th century, when the existence of Neanderthals was discovered.
A correction in the way prehistoric time is measured using radiocarbon dating, described last week in the journal Nature, doesn't answer the enduring question, but it might at least help explain why no DNA evidence of interbreeding has been found: the two species spent less time together than was previously believed.
The old radiocarbon calculation is now known to be off by as much as several thousand years, the new research shows. That means that modern Homo sapiens barged into Europe 46,000 years ago, 3,000 years earlier than once estimated. But the radiocarbon dating under the new calculation also shows that their takeover of the continent was more rapid, their coexistence with the native Neanderthals much briefer.
snip...
Was that advantage cognitive, technological or demographic? Their personal ornaments and cave art, now seen to have emerged much earlier, are strong evidence for an emergence of complex symbolic behavior among the modern newcomers, a marked advance in their intelligence.
That doesn't mean they didn't interbreed with the Neanderthals.
snip...
"Since these two species may have been able to interbreed, as many closely related mammal species can," Dr. Harvati said, "a restricted coexistence interval may be easier to reconcile with the observed lack of Neanderthal genetic contribution to the modern human gene pool and with the paucity of convincing fossil evidence for hybridization."
The caves, it would seem, still hold their secrets.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So, all this talk about men having sex with chickens and goats and dolphins and whatever misses the point entirely IMHO. In fact, this is one of those very rare times when I would say an argument seems revealing of androcentric thinking.
And the reason why I'm excluding Cro-Magnon male/Neanderthal female pairings as any kind of general rule is because we don't find mixed communities in the archeaological record, and in order for those admixtures to remain in the ultimate human gene pool, you have to have the Neanderthal women stay in the Cro-Magnon community.
And who the heck knows if that's even conceivable. Could they be domesticated? No one has the slightest clue. The assumption itself is yet another example of 'humanizing' Neanderthals in my view. For all we know, a Neanderthal female would never do anything but bite, kick, and claw until you killed her or let her go.
And one final point that I made in yesterday's thread: Neanderthal women were hardling wilting lilies such as that ridiculous reproduction above attempts to suggest. A Neanderthal female was about as musclebound as a Cro-Magnon male. A Cro-Magnon trying to rape a Neanderthal might very well wish she'd ran away!!
*sigh*
And on that note, I'm off to bed!
Could it be that what you call "the fringe motivations: racists who want a separate evolutionary lineage for each race and creationists who want to abolish any evidence of hominid speciation" -- are not fringe points at all, but your main issue?
You go on:
(And by no stretch am I assigning these motivations to even a majority of those who argue in favor of Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon admixture.
But they are a motivation for some. I did say "fringe"..)
Indeed you did; you call those interested in the origins of race a "fringe". I prefer to call the origins of race a central issue in human anthropology.
-- The Multiregional Model, as Milford Wolpoff presents, is a rational hypotheses, far from a fringe study. -- And I see a Neanderthal "admixture" as an important addition to Wolpoff's theories on racial origins.
We need to discuss 'race', not put it in a closet, seeing we're on the edge of a racial/religious world war.
One way to guess: were the Neanders as fascinated with the moon (and its cycles) as Hss? Were there lots of marks-of-groups-of-28 on bone chips and cave walls in Neander settlements?
No? That may be the dog that failed to bark, metaphorically speaking.
It's clear that the pic is he-neander-she-sapiens.
However if she chooses to do him maybe she ain't so sapient... ;0)
My views are so strong because I think that the evidence is so contrary to the notion of Cro-Magnon/Neanderthal admixture. I am actually an agnostic when it comes to the question of Homo sapiens/Homo erectus admixture over in Asia. That is because I am unaware of such a strong arrangement of evidence contrary to that notion. In fact, I think it's quite plausible that it happened.
So no, I do not reject the notion of admixture automatically simply because I have a problem with the notion on some ideological grounds or whatever. I just think that in the case of Neanderthals the evidence is so glaring against. And riddle me this: if Europeans are descendents of Neanderthals, then why the heck do we have less prominent brow ridges and higher foreheads than other races??
And might I add that I wouldn't have the slightest problem embracing the notion of Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon admixture if evidence to support it were presented. Show me the money! As I said before, "because they were there" just doesn't cut it for me.
And now it really is my bedtime! (I keep erratic hours.) If there's anything more, I'll have to get to it later.
PS. And very quickly, one reason that I'm less inclined to reject the posited admixture in Southeast Asia is because it would've happened at a far earlier stage of Homo sapiens development, and because the archaeological record of that milieu is far more fragmentary.
In short, my point is that by typical standards of identifying and labelling species I very strongly believe that if Neanderthals were discovered today with all that we know of them they would be labeled a separate species. And my strong personal view, to be sure, is a cognitive view, not an emotional view. It is my assessment of how hominid species are distinguished and identified.
Give some thought to the concept that the "evidence is so glaring against", because race is such a glaring political issue.
And riddle me this: if Europeans are descendents [mixtures] of Neanderthals [with modern man], then why the heck do we have less prominent brow ridges and higher foreheads than other races??
Hybrids frequently look quite different than parents. -- Why do mules look totally different than donkeys & mares?
"To: blam; Coyoteman; AntiGuv; Torie"
Just call me "chopped liver". ;')
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
I wonder if the Neanderthals were the first blonde cave women?
Maybe a mutant red head?
Mutant carrot tops? There should be a cartoon or animae about that. LOL!
We were just on this last thread. Seems related somehow. Apparently blondes are on the endangered species list and will become extinct in approx 200 years.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1585939/posts?
Kind of sucks for all of us here on FR.
neanderthal ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.