Maybe I'm wrong, but this is not entirely new, I believe that, in fact, it was one of the "dominant" theories before the "Eve" and "Out of Africa" theories had taken root (see Milford Wolpoff for example).

I found these excerpts interesting:

"…The Fossils

The African Eve model derived initially from the Afro-European
sapiens model of G. Bra¨uer's work, which relied on the datings' of
Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten'.Following his forced
resignation from the University of Frankfurt, it has become clear that
all of Protsch's dates for German human remains were spectacularly
false, and that the replacement advocates had been the subjects of a
hoax for several decades. If they had not relied on the claimed ages
of the German fossils, it is unlikely that the model would have
been launched quite so enthusiastically, if at all…"

"…In short, the deposits of EUP traditions in Europe have not yielded
any anatomically modern' human remains so far, but they have
produced Neanderthal' remains at least at six sites. Moreover,
numerous other specimens are intermediate, combining gracile and
robust features, and some of the latter continue for much of the last
30 ka…"


"…In the final analysis the replacement advocates placed all their
trust on the unassailability of the concept that the Aurignacian
derives from their Moderns. They have for decades belaboured the
cognitive sophistication evidenced by palaeoart and beads that
could not possibly have anything to do with Neanderthals. If all this
wonderful art were the work of Neanderthal descendents, the
replacement model would be defeated on all counts: technology,
culture, genetics and physical anthropology…"


"…but what the evidence now shows is that the period from 45 to 28 ka
BP has yielded dozens of Neanderthal remains in Europe, but no
securely dated, unambiguous anatomically modern human remains. This
point is reinforced by the occurrence of undisputed Neanderthal finds
together with EUP lithic traditions at several sites, but no Moderns
have so far been found in clear association with Aurignacian
or any other EUP artefacts. Therefore the proposition that the
Aurignacian and other Aurignacoid or EUP industries are traditions of
Neanderthals or of their descendants is supported by evidence, the
proposition that it is the culture of invading Moderns' is not.
Hence we are left with the dictum coined by the African Eve advocates
themselves: that the EUP people (i.e. late or post-Neanderthals) were
of entirely modern behaviour'…"

[quote:="FireArch"]Maybe I'm wrong, but this is not entirely new, I believe that, in fact, it was one of the "dominant" theories before the "Eve" and "Out of Africa" theories had taken root (see Milford Wolpoff for example).

Funny, we were just talking about a related topic in another thread:

[quote:="FireArch"]Homo is the genus, sapiens is the species, sapiens and neanderthalensis are the subspecies.

Depending on one's classification of where Neanderthals fall withing the genetic bush one could argue for H. neanderthalensis with no subspeciation, however, the convention that was proffered at university when I was there was H. s. s. and H. s. n.


With this new evidence in it appears at this point H.s.s. and H.s.n. apparently were the same species with varying degrees of robust genes.

Someone better call Chris Stringer and tell him all his past work was based on a bogus premise and that all his research and publications are total junk now that we have all this "new evidence" (which mysteriously has not been presented).

An interesting quote from Stringer:

"...Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory." ..."

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4174.html

That quote is far from your statement of position that no anatomically modern humans are to be found in Europe at the time you propose.

[quote:="FireArch"]That quote is far from your statement of position that no anatomically modern humans are to be found in Europe at the time you propose.

Yeah, that wasn't the intent. Just thought it was interesting.

But, can you or Stringer falsify Bednarik's position:

"…but what the evidence now shows is that the period from 45 to 28 ka
BP has yielded dozens of Neanderthal remains in Europe, but no
securely dated, unambiguous anatomically modern human remains..."

*note In an article dated August 22, 2004, Tony Paterson in the Telegraph quoted Professor Stringer as saying "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory." Stringer denies having made the statement: "I remember talking to the reporter concerned, and from what I remember the words in question were what he said to me, with him asking whether I agreed with the statement." Stringer also says the Paterson quote "is a made-up quote, as I never placed great weight on the significance of the Hahnofersand find in the first place. It was never called a Neanderthal as far as I know, but certain people saw "mixed" features in its morphology. Its removal is certainly not rewriting anything I have ever said about the Neanderthals, let alone rewriting prehistory!" (personal correspondence)

http://www.skepdic.com/protsch.html#note

Well, that's certainly interesting. Here in lies many a problem. Relying on quotes cited in a newspaper always requires large grains of salt. It does not surprise me that he may have been purposely misquoted. Stringer, you will recall, spent years running around all over Europe and west Asia looking at Neanderthal specimens for his Ph.D. (if I recall correctly) dissertation, so he should know what is and what is not Neanderthal.

[quote:="FireArch"]Well, that's certainly interesting. Here in lies many a problem. Relying on quotes cited in a newspaper always requires large grains of salt. It does not surprise me that he may have been purposely misquoted. Stringer, you will recall, spent years running around all over Europe and west Asia looking at Neanderthal specimens for his Ph.D. (if I recall correctly) dissertation, so he should know what is and what is not Neanderthal.

Yup. That whole Neanderthal bit through me for sure. So anyway, I'm sifting through the caca. :wink:

Here's the article Charlie cited above:



Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten (b. 1939) was a professor of anthropology at Frankfurt University for 30 years before he was forced to resign in disgrace. A university committee revealed that throughout his career Protsch had plagiarized the work of colleagues and had systematically falsified dates on numerous "stone age" fossils, including a skull fragment - dubbed Hahnhöfersand Man - that allegedly linked humans and Neanderthals.

Protsch (the von Zieten honorific title appears to be bogus (Harding 2005)) dated the skull fragment at 36,000 years. He claimed it was found in a peat bog and was a vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals. The fragment is actually about 7,500 years old, according to Oxford University's radiocarbon dating unit. (Harding) Several fossils had been sent to Oxford in 2001 for testing of dates and it was then that the "dating disaster" was discovered. Protsch identified a female skeleton as a Neanderthal who died near the south-west German town of Speyer about 19,300 B.C. (the "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton). The lady actually lived around 1,300 B.C. Protsch also dated a skull discovered near Paderborn in 1976 at 27,400 years old and was considered the oldest human remain ever found in the region. The skull is now believed to date from the mid-18th century.

"The new data from Oxford is all wrong," Protsch told Der Spiegel (August 18, 2004). The Oxford scientists didn't remove shellac preservative from the specimens, he said. That's why the fossils dated as much younger. "Unfortunately, archaeologists and most anthropologists do not study physics or chemistry and therefore they cannot make judgments on carbon dating," he said. "Wrong measurements are made in all laboratories" (Paterson 2004). Apparently, Protsch didn't get the irony in his claim.

Frankfurt University's investigation of Protsch, who was suspended from the university in April 2004* and later forced to retire, was led by Professor Ulrich Brandt. During their investigation, the university discovered that Protsch was unable to work his own carbon-dating machine (Harding).

Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered Protsch's frauds, said that "Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago. Professor Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

On the other hand, Professor Chris Stringer of the Department of Palaeontology at London's Natural History Museum, says that Hahnhöfersand Man

was never regarded as a Neanderthal and was briefly important in the 1980s to people like Gunter Brauer, who were arguing for gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans. However, as anyone who is familiar with the palaeoanthropological literature over the last 20 years would know, the find has been of negligible significance to recent debate. It has to be said that this is also a reflection of Dr. Protsch's low reputation in the field, as anyone familiar with the recent literature would also know (personal correspondence).*

Protsch seems to have returned to Germany after getting a doctorate from UCLA and then proceeded to spend much of his career faking discoveries and stealing from the work of others. His doctoral dissertation was titled "The dating of Upper-Pleistocene Subsaharan fossil hominids and their place in human evolution: with morphological and archaeological implications." The degree was awarded in 1973, the same year that the same UCLA department of anthropology awarded a doctorate to Carlos Castaneda.

According to the Guardian,

In one case he had claimed that a 50 million-year-old "half-ape" called Adapis had been found in Switzerland, an archaeological sensation. In reality, the ape had been dug up in France, where several other examples had already been found.

In addition to being forced to retire, Protsch is under police investigation for allegedly trying to sell 278 chimpanzee skulls that belonged to the university to a U.S. dealer. Protsch claims that that he got the skulls from a Heidelberg ethnologist in 1975 and denies any wrongdoing (Paterson).

It was also reported by Der Spiegel that Protsch, the son of a Nazi MP, is under investigation by Frankfurt University for ordering the shredding of documents housed in the anthropology department relating to gruesome scientific experiments done by the Nazis in the 1930s.

One might wonder how he got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of Archaeoraptor. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of Piltdown. But eventually the correction occurs.

Frankfurt University's president, Rudolf Steinberg, apologized to "all those harmed by" Protsch and acknowledged that the institution's administration had ignored the professor's misconduct for decades despite existing proof for his mistakes. "A lot of people looked the other way," he said. In the future, he said, students and new employees will be instructed in what constitutes appropriate scientific research behavior.

One would hope that the anthropological community would learn from this episode as well. No single scientist, regardless of his or her status, should be taken at his or her word about the dating of a fossil that has significant implications for the discipline. That lesson should have been learned from the Piltdown hoax. It will not be surprising if it is discovered that German nationalism played a role in Protsch's success, as English nationalism did in Piltdown's.

*note In an article dated August 22, 2004, Tony Paterson in the Telegraph quoted Professor Stringer as saying "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory." Stringer denies having made the statement: "I remember talking to the reporter concerned, and from what I remember the words in question were what he said to me, with him asking whether I agreed with the statement." Stringer also says the Paterson quote "is a made-up quote, as I never placed great weight on the significance of the Hahnofersand find in the first place. It was never called a Neanderthal as far as I know, but certain people saw "mixed" features in its morphology. Its removal is certainly not rewriting anything I have ever said about the Neanderthals, let alone rewriting prehistory!" (personal correspondence)

"...All men and women are Africans under their skin. It's as simple as that," says Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum, London, a founder of the Out of Africa theory...

...Most scientists accept that humanity originally evolved in Africa. About 2m years ago, our predecessors Homo erectus - tall, tool-making, small-skulled apemen - emerged from the continent and began spreading around the Old World. But what came next is hotly disputed...

...One group of scientists - known as the multi-regionalists, led by Milford Wolpoff from Michigan University - claim these ancient humans began to evolve in these new homelands and that the Chinese, aborigines from Australia, the Inuit and other races today are the direct descendants of these ancient emigres. An example is provided by the Neanderthals who dominated Europe from about 250,000 years ago until they disappeared around 35,000 years ago. In their place, a race of sophisticated craftsmen and hunters called the Cro-Magnons began to flourish. Multi-regionalists claim Neanderthals vanished for the simple reason they had evolved into Cro-Magnons, who then became the founding stock of Europeans today...

...But supporters of the Out of Africa theory say Cro-Magnons were not descendants of Neanderthals but invaders from another continent. And for evidence they point out that Cro-Magnons had tall and cylindrical skeletons, an adaptation which helps radiate excess heat and is found in individuals from hot climates. By contrast, Neanderthals had burly, spherical skeletons and had clearly evolved in a cold, or at least, cool climate - for spherical bodies are best at retaining heat..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution2?gusrc=rss&feed=science

Clearly Bednarik and Stringer are at odds on this:

But, can you or Stringer falsify Bednarik's position:

"…but what the evidence now shows is that the period from 45 to 28 ka
BP has yielded dozens of Neanderthal remains in Europe, but no
securely dated, unambiguous anatomically modern human remains..."

...This point is reinforced by the occurrence of undisputed Neanderthal finds together with EUP lithic traditions at several sites, but no Moderns have so far been found in clear association with Aurignacian
or any other EUP artefacts. Therefore the proposition that the
Aurignacian and other Aurignacoid or EUP industries are traditions of
Neanderthals or of their descendants is supported by evidence, the
proposition that it is the culture of invading Moderns' is not..."




Rumor has it Hawks is going to comment on the issue soon...If so, it will interesting to hear what he has to say.

[quote:="FireArch"]Someone better call Chris Stringer and tell him all his past work was based on a bogus premise and that all his research and publications are total junk now that we have all this "new evidence" (which mysteriously has not been presented).

Or perhaps someone could enlighten us all to what skeletal evidence Chris is referring to now in support of his theory?

It's not the Hahnofersand skull,

the Paderborn-Sande skull,

the Binhoff cranial fragment,

the two Urdhohle individuals,

the Kelsterbach skull

or the skull from Velika Pecina.

Could it be the unreliables from France?

Or perhaps some of the remains that are now missing?

With the neurological, linguistic and even archaeological evidence piling up against the short-term theory there doesn't appear to be any rebuttals forthcoming, just a quiet shifting of positions... peppered with vague references to integrity and professionalism.

Sure the papers are generally crap for this sort of thing, but how many have actually taken the time out to read the Bednarik paper in full yet are still prepared to parrot the discontinuist line as if it is a given.

Charlie - note how there has been little or no comment from any of the "hard-core" element here, just a token response from Firearch to make it seem like these things are really discussed. The implications of the dominance of this theory over the past years are many. Will the discipline learn? I doubt it, many still haven't got a real handle on taphonomic logic.

I suggest you read his book "In search of the Neanderthals" (http://www.bestwebbuys.com/In_Search_of_the_Neanderthals-ISBN_9780500278079.html?isrc=b-search) to find the answers to those questions. Note, I do not entirely agree with all the positions and assumptions made by the authors, but do at least find it compelling. Unfortunately, both sides of the issue argue from "evidence" that is often equivocal.

[quote:="Manystones"]

Or perhaps someone could enlighten us all to what skeletal evidence Chris is referring to now in support of his theory?

It's not the Hahnofersand skull,

the Paderborn-Sande skull,

the Binhoff cranial fragment,

the two Urdhohle individuals,

the Kelsterbach skull

or the skull from Velika Pecina.

Could it be the unreliables from France?

Or perhaps some of the remains that are now missing?



Hi Richard.

Reminds me of the old Wendy's commercials: "Where's the Meat!".

If the skeletal evidence is being overlooked by the multiregional folk, the onus is on Stringer et al. to provide positive, physical evidence for the replacement theory.

Note, I do not entirely agree with all the positions and assumptions made by the authors, but do at least find it compelling. Unfortunately, both sides of the issue argue from "evidence" that is often equivocal.

Yeah, from previous discussions I didn't figure you were 100% onboard with the replacement theory:

[quote:="FireArch"]Homo is the genus, sapiens is the species, sapiens and neanderthalensis are the subspecies.

Depending on one's classification of where Neanderthals fall withing the genetic bush one could argue for H. neanderthalensis with no subspeciation, however, the convention that was proffered at university when I was there was H. s. s. and H. s. n.

My guess is when you received your formal education, Wolpoff's multiregional model was prominent. If I'm dating you beyond your years, my apologies. :wink: I was a Business type, but even the two intro type biology classes I took in the early 80's taught that H.s.n. and H.s.s. were the same species.

Point is, the debate between the two models continues on.

I'm interested to see how Bednarik's claims hold up over time. He's definitely got us thinking again, which is never a bad thing.

Ya, Wolpoff's (who carries the torch from Carleton S. Coon) was one of a number of competing interpretations and theories of speciation and radiation during my waning undergrad days. The trick at that time was figuring out where in the line Neaders fit; are they directly linked or are they their own branch? Stringer and others have made a compelling, though not entirely convincing, argument for "their own branch" based on morphological and genetic distinctions. I still have serious concerns when "replacement" is used as it has definite connotations (e.g., literal replacement of one for the other through violence, and I dont recall seeing anything that has shown that definitively. I recall reading something by Bar-Yosef or Soffer or the like that showed Neanders and Moderns occupying the same caves in the Levant alternately over a period of time - so it was probably more like a "replacement" due to environmental success rather than direct competition), and also regarding their particular "clocks" used to determine the rate of mutation within mtdna, which they have used to provide "Eve" with her start date in Africa.

[quote:="FireArch"]I recall reading something by Bar-Yosef or Soffer or the like that showed Neanders and Moderns occupying the same caves in the Levant alternately over a period of time

Was this opinion based on tools or skeletons?
Or do you recall?

I dont recall very well on this one, but I think it was tool based; it was a long time ago, and it might have been at a presentation at the SAAs in 1990/1, whenever they were in New Orleans in the early part of that decade.

I'm sure it's on the web somewhere.

Roger that.

Maybe that book should have been called "In Search of the Cro-Magnons".

Tool based is very problematic and prone to the vagaries of subjectivity.

Bednarik argues that the Stringer et al complete separation is fundamentally false citing the Abrigo do Lagar Velho specimen to be "unconvincing" and points to the dozens of intermediates as evidence of a gradual gracilisation process.

Also, I don't remember the word replacement featuring heavily in Bednariks 'domestication' theory.

Obviously were in the presence of an expert on this subject, so I wait with great expectations to read your book with all its incisive details and proofs. Really, I do.

[quote:="Manystones"]

Tool based is very problematic and prone to the vagaries of subjectivity.



Definitely. Mousterian techs have been found in the same context as H.s.s. skeletal material and EUP techs have been found in the same context as H.s.n. skeletal material.

Hell, look at the Mayans, they used the Levallois tech:


http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/2003augustmacrobladedaggerpage2.htm

[quote:="Charlie Hatchett"]Definitely. Mousterian techs have been found in the same context as H.s.s. skeletal material and EUP techs have been found in the same context as H.s.n. skeletal material.

Ya, I've seen that as well. Like I said it's been a while since I've gone through this material, but I think the article I was referring to was suggestive more on spacial analyses and overall tool kit structures, and refuse analysis. Unfortunately I dont recall all the details, nor where to find them. I know it's out there so someone can dig around for it if they are interested.

My question, given Bednarik's position, who has stated that moderns were in Europe at the time he says they were not. Someone post up a quote so we can analyze the two positions.

Bednarik's position:

"…but what the evidence now shows is that the period from 45 to 28 ka
BP has yielded dozens of Neanderthal remains in Europe, but no
securely dated, unambiguous anatomically modern human remains..."

"...Therefore the proposition that the Aurignacian and other Aurignacoid or EUP industries are traditions of Neanderthals or of their descendants is supported by evidence, the proposition that it is the culture of invading Moderns' is not..."

Stringer's position:


"...This second wave of African invaders appeared in chilly Europe about 45,000 years ago and quickly replaced the Neanderthals, possibly violently or merely by being more successful at monopolising resources. Men and women of recent African origins then became the founding stock of Europeans, and of all the other peoples of the world today..."

Thanks for posting that Charlie, I don't think it leaves any room for misinterpretation.

Obviously were in the presence of an expert on this subject, so I wait with great expectations to read your book with all its incisive details and proofs. Really, I do.

Firearch,

I am a keen amateur, if I come across as informed, and intelligent why would this surprise you? I believe I do have something of value to add to this discussion, perhaps you don't, in which case you could always precise your reasons why you have come to this conclusion. Otherwise, as a moderator I would suggest you practice a modicum of self moderation.

Kind regards

Richard

[quote:="Manystones"]I am a keen amateur, if I come across as informed, and intelligent why would this surprise you?

It doesn't surprise me, which is why I await your book because clearly you have a better understanding of the material than the other so called "experts" on this subject.

As for my moderation, clearly you haven't been paying attention, but that also doesn't surprise me.

Cheers

[quote:="FireArch"]It doesn't surprise me, which is why I await your book because clearly you have a better understanding of the material than the other so called "experts" on this subject.

Is this always how you act when someone makes a post to the forum or do you just reserve that for people you feel threatened by?

[quote:="FireArch"]As for my moderation, clearly you haven't been paying attention, but that also doesn't surprise me.

I am still bemused and intrigued to learn why you feel the need to attack my character and not just deal with the issues raised.

You clearly have an aptitude for moderation :D

I havent been threatened and you havent been attacked.




Charlie, do you have the sources for those quotes?

[quote:="FireArch"]

Charlie, do you have the sources for those quotes?



Here you go:




Bednarik's position:

"…but what the evidence now shows is that the period from 45 to 28 ka
BP has yielded dozens of Neanderthal remains in Europe, but no
securely dated, unambiguous anatomically modern human remains..."


http://nteu53.homestead.com/files/mythical_moderns1.pdf




Stringer's position:


"...This second wave of African invaders appeared in chilly Europe about 45,000 years ago and quickly replaced the Neanderthals, possibly violently or merely by being more successful at monopolising resources. Men and women of recent African origins then became the founding stock of Europeans, and of all the other peoples of the world today..."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution2?gusrc=rss&feed=science

From Homo Britannicus, C. Stringer, Penguin, 2006, p.10.

"....20,000 years ago, new kinds of people with different kinds of stone tools entered Europe and eventually Britain - the modern-looking Cro-Magnons. They were Homo sapiens, like us in appearance and behaviour and part of a global dispersal of our species that is being tracked in increasing detail through fossils, artefacts and genes in every inhabited continent... ... With the wealth of new archaeological, environmental, dating and even genetic evidence, we are finally close to solving the mystery of the disappearance of the Neanderthals and the part we played in it."

so on the surface of it, it looks like there is a shifting of position here from the often quoted 45 kyr figure...

but,

p. 185:

"They first appeared in Europe about 40,000 years ago, and physically they were essentially like us, but somewhat larger bodied and (like Neanderthals) somewhat larger brained too."

p. 186, 187: picture of 'lions' from Chauvet Cave.

- I presume the implication being that it was painted by Cro-Magnon.

p. 189:

"We get the same message of complexity from the cave art and sculpture that the Cro-Magnons left behind them. Remote parts of caves that were never lived in are sometimes almost saturated with red or black images of the animals that the artists saw in the outside world or in their imagination - horse, mammoth, woolly rhino, bison, aurochs, deer, reindeer, and more rarely carnivores such as lion, bear, hyaena, and humans themselves. Rarer still there are birds, strange symbols, and weird figures that are part animal, part human. This tradition of cave art lasted over 20,000 years....."

p. 190:
"All of these behaviours seem to have appeared in Europe after the Cro-Magnons arrived, and we have no evidence that the Neanderthals produced anything as complex."

"As we have seen, the Cro-Magnons first appeared in Europe about 40,000 years ago - but where did they come from?"

p. 191:

"While no diagnostic fossils have yet been found with the Bohunician, those with the Aurignacian are modern humans similar to the ones associated with the succeeding widespread European industry - the Gravettian.."

p. 192:

"Then in the last 100,000 years H. sapiens started to emerge from its African homeland, probably first turning eastwards and expanding along the coasts of Arabia and southern Asia towards China and Australia."

Thanks gents

Looks like it's going to be up to the genetic and dating lab boys to straighten us all out--are we screwed or what?

Have been searching for the Neanderthal bone needle. Still have to wonder just how significant this would be. They had to tailor clothes to survive the cold. This stuff about wraps and ponchos is plain nonsense. If no needles, they must have use punch and laced using sinew or leather thongs. To me the real issue that no one seems to talk about is that they had to be able to envison, cut a pattern and tie knots!

So much is overlooked in quest to keep N in their place. If N knew about sewing, then he most likely knew about making and using rope. How else do people think they got the meat from large animals back home?

Being restricted to hunting in a forest is questionable. Not all of Europe was forest and NEWS FLASH animals migrate and leave the forest--what did they do then, starve (or eat each other)? In a forest fresh water and travel food is not always conveniently on a game trail. Lewis and Clark almost starved to death in northern Idaho as the game was on the plains.

Most likely N also had baskets/packs to carry the stuff as well. Hunting also meant they must have known about smoking/processing meat and carrying water for the trail. Another beef (pun pardon) I have is utility of throwing stick for N. If they were all that strong, they likely didn't need the sucker to throw fifty yards. Their heavier spears would have then been advantageous; kind of like an elephant rifle compared to a varmint gun. Overkill (danother pardon the pun) but is more assured of affect.

To me the ability to tie knots takes considerable intelligence of several facets including problem solving, counting, spatial relationships, complex speech, etc. to pass on knowledge of which knot to use and when. If Homo Erectus could build boats to get to Australia, he too needed knowledge of rope, knots and complex speech.

Don't have all the answers, but can recognize lack of thought on the implications by acadamia.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/symbolism/soressi-derrico-symbolism-neandertals-2007.html

Recently, a number of readers have asked for my thoughts on the article, "The Mythical Moderns," by Robert Bednarik. It is very much worth doing, particularly since a couple of prominent news articles have returned to the issue of "out of Africa" and modern human origins. I also want to discuss the ongoing debate between Paul Mellars and João Zilhão (and others), which touches on many of the same issues. But it's going to take a lot of groundwork to do a good job reviewing the current state of the science.



According to this recent quote, Hawks still intends to review "The Mythical Moderns". I wrote Hawks about it when the paper became available and he wrote back saying that he intended to review it soon. That was nearly 3 mos. ago. So, there's still hope.

And marehart - my sentiments exactly!

Last date on this thread is 2008.  Anything new comments then???

Here's a current statement Hawks made:


"...Since humans and Neandertals could interbreed, some people question whether the two groups are different hominid species. The question doesn’t hold interest for John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Genealogically, he says, the new study shows that many humans had a Neandertal great-great-great-great … grandfather. 'It’s impossible to talk about them as ‘them’ anymore,' he says. 'Neandertals are us'...”

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans

I will be truly surprized if in the near future it is "discovered" that HSS and HSN had a significantly greater interaction than we are presently allowed to think.  This will happen only when people like Tattersal will take off their blinders and admit that the "classic" neanderthal is  somewhat non-typical and that the range of features overlaps that of the Cro Magnon considerably.  At that point, one can then start an arguement about why Homo Erectus should not be viewed as part of the spectrum of Homo Sapien as well!