Neanderthal Tools Re-Appraised

[uniface]

Two recent studies examined the possibility that Neanderthals created a new*toolkit in Europe about 30,000 to 40,000 years ago. For the past few decades, most archeologists assumed that Neanderthal stone tools were simple and roughly shaped. But that assumption may be undermined by the discovery*at some Neanderthal sites of thinner, more blade-like stones, some with jagged toothed edges, and others that had one sharp edge and a dull, curved back. They were similar to tools favored by humans during the same time period, leading some experts to assume that Neanderthals were heavily influenced by human culture.

Now, some archaeologists are viewing Neanderthals in a more favorable light, casting them as an intellectual match for humans and calling into question the widely-held idea that changes in Neanderthal culture were introduced by Homo sapiens . . .

The blunt tools favored by Neanderthals were more clumsy-looking than the bladed stone tools their human contemporaries used, but were produced more efficiently and lasted longer. If Neanderthals did not develop new tools, it may not have been because they were insufficiently intelligent, but because they were already smart enough to know they didn’t need the cool new tools that the humans used in the cave next door. “Unchanging technology used to equal inability to innovate, but it could have just been them reaching the peak [of efficiency],” said archaeologist Metin Eren of Southern Methodist University in Texas.

Are you smarter than a Neanderthal toolmaker? Scienceline

[highsierra]

Funny how the scientific community keeps referring to Neanderthals as "not human". How ridiculous. They were most certainly human and undoubtedly interbred with their Cro-magnon neighbors. N. traits remain today in Northern European populations, with an occasional "throwback" displaying a more profound resemblance to a distant ancestor.

[rokdok]

Originally Posted by highsierra

Funny how the scientific community keeps referring to Neanderthals as "not human". How ridiculous. They were most certainly human and undoubtedly interbred with their Cro-magnon neighbors. N. traits remain today in Northern European populations, with an occasional "throwback" displaying a more profound resemblance to a distant ancestor.

I agree completely,recent genetic research by Yotova et al has demonstrated that THE OLDEST FORM of the gene which codes for the protein dystrophin (B006) found in modern humans is Neanderthal in origin, and even more startling is the fact that THE NEANDERTHAL GENE OCCURS AT IT'S HIGHEST FREQUENCY IN NATIVE AMERICANS(25%) and not in Europe(9%) or Western Asia, the home range of Neanders, where they had at least 10,000 years to interbreed with "modern humans".

[drdave514]

There is every evidence, in my opinion, that homo erectus orgininated in Africa (from homo habilis) and migrated at numerous times in "waves" throughout the last 1 million years to other regions. Each of t hose groups "evolved" and then interbred with future migrations of homo heidelbergenesis and archaic(not to be confused with what we call archaic in native american) humans as each "wave" moved in. Over time the waves, which appear to have been dominant enough to overtake those regions in a genetic/dna sense. Until, ultimately, we have homo sapiens approximately 60,000-30,000 years ago with the majority of their DNA being very similar. From there you get the migrations of different groups into Australia, then Europe.

They have given this idea the name of Assimilation Model and it seems to encorporate the findings of the Replacement and Regional Continuity Models and continues to be further supported by the anatomical and more interestingly the genetic findings that are coming at a fairly rapid rate with the new technology.

Essentially, you have groups moving out of Africa at various times, evolving, interbreeding, competing, etc.. until you have a fairly diverse group of humans.

What I find most interesting is that they are "all" of the opinion that humans took boats to Australia 50ish thousand years ago but many don't want to believe North and/or South America were not able to be inhabited until 20,000 years ago, or less.

[mootsman]

Originally Posted by highsierra

They were most certainly human and undoubtedly interbred with their Cro-magnon neighbors. N. traits remain today in Northern European populations, with an occasional "throwback" displaying a more profound resemblance to a distant ancestor.

I would really like to read the research that lists what Neandertal traits exist in the European population. A vestigial genetic marker does not imply behavioral or physical characteristics. And what is a "throwback" and how, if it exists at all, could it be distinguished from the normal distribution of physical attributes?

No offense meant but I'm a bit flabbergasted at those notions and would like to read about them. I have participated for years in a genetic genealogy study and while I have green eyes, somewhat olive skin and brown hair my most distant (8k years BP) ancestors originated in what is now Norway. Heck we share 98% plus of our genes with chimpanzees.

[drdave514]

If you've been doing genetic research of any kind I'm not going to elaborate on the difference between a gene, it's dominance or recessiveness and how that relates to traits but I think we're talking about a drop in the bucket maker. Not 'how many of my kids will have blue eyes'.

I'll put the link here that I put on the other page as well in case others are only following one discussion.

For what they were... we are: Is X-DNA lineage Neanderthal?

[mootsman]

Originally Posted by drdave514

If you've been doing genetic research of any kind I'm not going to elaborate on the difference between a gene, it's dominance or recessiveness and how that relates to traits but I think we're talking about a drop in the bucket maker. Not 'how many of my kids will have blue eyes'.

That's exactly my point that perhaps I poorly made. I was responding to the poster's comment that there were obvious Neandertal traits and "throwbacks" in Europe.

[drdave514]

Gotcha.

I suspect there is something to us as a whole that may be different than before interbreeding but I've not read much.

This article looks interesting and I'll have to dig into it later.
Garret LoPorto: Surprising Way Your Neanderthal Genes May Affect You

[uniface]

Originally Posted by Moot

I was responding to the poster's comment that there were obvious Neandertal traits and "throwbacks" in Europe

Originally Posted by drdave

there were obvious Neandertal traits and "throwbacks" in Europe.

My eighth grade civics teacher, for one example

[drdave514]

Uni, HighSierra was the one who said "throwback". It wasn't me. But I think I knew one. He coached our high school football team.