[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Human culture changes 40-30ky ago?

Subject: Re: Human culture changes 40-30ky ago?
From: "John Roth"
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:37:14 -0600
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
"deowll" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]

"John Roth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
"deowll" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]

"John Roth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
"a Euro-centric view, and was quite popular back when most
of the anthropology was centered around European digs.

More recent anthropology work in Africa shows quite modern looking
artifacts and so forth going back to 150kya or more ago.

Europe actually seems to be the latecomer on the scene, possibly
because it was already occupied by the Neanderthals so it wasn't
a good place to expand into. "

[Richard said, and didn't quote properly]

Do you really think 'modern' Europeans waited for a bit while the
Neandertals expired slowly, reducing the competition, then went in ?

[JR's reply]

Dunno, however the evidence for AMH in other places of the
globe (Australia, frex) long before Europe makes it a reasonable
conjecture. Of course, it's also possible that they simply didn't
notice it was there.

The people in Australia went by Flores and never knocked them out. The overlap in Europe measured in time is huge but Hs and Hsn don't seemed to have lived in the same place at the exact same time though I could be corrected on that. My take is that in many cases what ever the advantage AMH had over the other Homo populations often failed to be enough to do anything resembling a fast take over.

I think we're on the same general page. The classical image of the
Neanderthal as a squat, brutish creature that would have been a
pushover for modern hs seems to be headed for the trash bin.

As a second point to ponder, though: there was a study published
a month or two ago about the route out of Africa. This particular
study proposed that it took the southern seacoast route around the
Arabian Peninsula, and hence never went near the inland entrance
to Europe until much later, when the migration returned through Asia.

John Roth

I think that idea has been knocking around for a few years. I guess they were blocked by the population north east of Egypt. It apparently couldn't expand because it didn't but it was to tough to displace at the time because it wasn't.

It's hard to be sure from news reports, but I believe the idea was that
the original dispersal followed the coasts, and only later moved inland
away from coastal areas.

The standard maps show the exit from Africa moving through the Middle
East, right past the gateway to Europe. The proposed map shows that
the migration didn't come anywhere near the gateway.

There is, by the way, a problem with the news reports. If you really
want a coastal route, you can do it by going around the Red Sea,
rather than having to build rafts to get across the strait they name.
It's longer, but so what - nobody was checking trip mileage (or
kilometerage) to determine whether they wanted to do it.

John Roth

John Roth



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>