From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Humans as Physical Creatures.
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 10:49:25 GMT

In article <MARTINC.92Oct4161546@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.205144.28512@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>
>   In article <MARTINC.92Oct2122534@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>   >In article <1992Oct2.115332.11796@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>   >
>   >   I think you might be confusing Cro-Magnons with Neanderthals.  The
>   >   latter are a human subspecies that has been extinct for about 40,000
>   >   years.  It was not because their heads were too big.  Their brains
>   >   were indeed somewhat larger than ours, but they were also stockier.
>   >   It's still a matter of debate as to why they became extinct.
>   >
>   >Or even if.  (I guess the senate races are still on my mind.)
>
>   Now, Charlies, I really must protest your libel of the Neanderthals.
>   It's lucky for you that the dead can't sue.
>
>Charlies?  Are there two of me now?

Oh, drat!  I went back to change "Charles" to "Charlie" and didn't finish the
job.

>Actually, that might explain a lot.....

What does Chuck say?

>   >Serious, I've read at least a few suggestions that Neanderthals and
>   >Cromagnons were a single interbreeding and that the Neanderthals didn't
>   >so much become extinct as be absorbed.  Maybe agriculture was too
>   >tempting.... 
>
>   Well, the two leading theories are that the Neanderthals were either
>   absorbed or exterminated by the Cro-Magnons.  Given European treatment
>   of various indigenous peoples, e.g., the Tasmanians, I'm not prepared to
>   rule out the latter.  However, agriculture can be ruled out.  Our Cro-
>   Magnon ancestors didn't make that mistake until about 30,000 years after
>   the Neanderthals were gone.
>
>Just to throw some unwarrented seriousness into this -- by the way,
>where do you read up on this stuff Herb?

Well, there's this big building called a library and inside are these things
called books, but you already knew that.

>-- I've always been a *little*
>suspicious about the sorts of dates that get thrown around in near-term
>archaeology (or paleo-anthropology, I'm not sure how this fits.)  I know
>that CE-10K years is the accepted idea for the "dawn of agriculture" and
>that -40K years is accepted for the disappearance of Neanderthals.  But
>how accurate can these dates be?  What *is* "agriculture"?  Does it
>include hunter-gatherers taking steps to ensure that stuff grows where
>they'll look for it next year?  And how narrowly can we identify the
>"date" on which the Neanderthals disappeared?

Radiometric dating methods (note plural) are employed.  Cross-checking helps
to catch errors.  My impression is that the dates are known to within 5%,
maybe less.

There are was one important event that had to precede human agriculture, 
i.e., the end of the last Ice Age (actually the beginning of the present
inter-glacial period; the Ice Age could resume at any time).  The current
view is that plant farming began with the accidental selection of certain
strains of cereals and the gradual domestication of other animals following
the successful experience with the wolf/dog.

>ASSUMING they have, something on which I'm still not completely resolved.

Well, from the neck down the Neanderthals were pretty much indistinguishable
from us, but they did have heavier brow ridges.  Looking at two skulls, it's
easy to tell which is which.  Their skulls were also somewhat thicker.  Today
there is a group with heavier brow ridges and thicker skulls on average;
they are called male humans.  (It's more sexual dimorphism.)

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: soc.singles