Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: The Long Count

  1. #1
    Senior Member Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,199
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    19 Posts

    The Long Count

    Greg Cochran blogged on the implications of the Sima de los Huesos people being neanderthaloids. I don't agree with all arguments he makes but our modern human line must go back a long way and language might be overrated.

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/...he-long-count/

    They’ve managed to sequence a bit of autosomal DNA from the Atapuerca skeletons, about 430,000 years old, confirming that they are on the Neanderthal branch.

    Among other things, this supports the slow mutation rate, one compatible with what we see in modern family trios, but also with the fossil record.

    This means that the Pygmies, and probably the Bushmen also, split off from the rest of the human race about 300,000 years ago. Call them Paleoafricans.

    They are anatomically modern: they have chins, etc. Behaviorally modern? There have been only a few attempts to measure their intelligence: what has been done indicates that they have very low IQs. They definitely talk, tell stories, sing songs: does that imply that they could, given the right environment, have developed the Antikythera mechanism or a clipper ship?

    This means that language is older than some had thought, a good deal older. It also means that people with language are quite capable of going a quarter of a million years without generating much technological advance – without developing the ability to push aside archaic humans, for example. Of course, people with Williams syndrome have language, and you can’t send them into the kitchen and rely on them to bring back a fork. Is the sophistication of Bushman language – this means the concepts they can and do convey, not the complexity of the grammar – comparable with that of other populations? I don’t know. As far as I can see, one of the major goals of modern anthropology is to make sure that nobody knows. Or that they know things that aren’t so.

    The minimal definition of behavioral modernity – that set of traits that exists in all of humanity, including those that are most divergent, and that are probably ancestral in anatomically modern humans – may not include much technological creativity.

    Next: since we now know that generic Neanderthal and Denisovan alleles don’t fit too well with anatomically modern humans, and AMH alleles didn’t fit too well with Altai Neanderthals, it seem likely that you see the beginning of such functional divergence between Paleoafricans and everyone else. I know of one example of a European haplotype that’s a heart disease risk on a mostly-African genetic background, but not on a European background, but most such incompatibilities are probably very mild, hard to detect. It would probably take thousands of generations for a Pygmy population to lose a significant fraction of its Bantu introgression. You might be able to detect this on a few alleles, but for the most part it just hasn’t been long enough.

    Culture gets forgotten, inventions get lost: any populations with a sufficiently low innovation rate probably does not advance at all, culturally. They could respond to natural selection, change in a way that increased their innovation rate… So people could continue to make Acheulean handaxes for a million years: they had to change before there could be further technological progress. Neanderthals had more sophisticated technology, but that technology changed very, very slowly compared to, say , that of humans in the upper Paleolithic. Biology keeps culture on a leash, and you can get to the end of the leash.

    Some have suggested that the key to technological development is higher population: that produces more intellects past a high threshold, sure. I don’t think that’s the main factor. Eskimos have a pretty advanced technology, but there were never very many of them. On the other hand, they have the highest IQ of any existing hunter-gatherer population: that’s got to help. Populations must have gone up the Eemian, the previous interglacial period, but nothing much got invented back then. It would seem that agriculture would have been possible in the Eemian, but as far as we know it didn’t happen. Except for Valusia of course. With AMH going back at least 300,000 years, we have to start thinking about even earlier interglacial peiods, like Mindel-Riss (424-374 k years ago)

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Friday, October 7th, 2016 @ 02:13 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Cape Province Cape Province
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Religion
    none
    Posts
    972
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Two lines of thought here, genetic and culture. As far as culture is concerned, it means nothing in a phylogenetic discussion of archaics and moderns. For over 300,000 years the most culturally-technically advanced people where the Neanderthals. Mousterian incorporated all other stone techniques and outperformed all others in terms of diversity of tool kits.

    As far a genes go, the Sima people in question have a Denisovan-like mtDNA but a Neanderthal-like n-DNA. It could just be the Denisovans were an earlier form of human, one being replaced in Europe by the Neanderthals. Neanderthals spread outward from the Near East and eventually came upon the Denisovans again, in Siberia.

    All the genetic incompatible aspects of the Neanderthal vs. Denisovan or Pigmy or Bushman vs. moderns are what you would expect, not in a gene flow setting but in an introgression setting ---and that is what we have acknowledged between moderns and Neanderthals-Denisovans in the north. Why not the same in ancient Africa?

    The naming of these two old groups in Africa as possibly being separated from the mainstream moderns for 300,000 years or more is the big news.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,199
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    The Iwo Eluru calvarium would have been interpreted as a female Homo heidelbergensis were it not terminal Pleistocene or early Holocene. Iwo Eluru must fit into African ancestry somehow.

    Didn't restudy of the wear and tear on a neanderthal hyoid demonstrate human vocalisations? That would put articulate speech back to the split with Atapuerca people probably.

    Pygmies are a specialised race not just biologically but culturally as well. They don't even make stone tools although they do have Mesolithic technology such as bows and arrows and goods like machetes from their neighbours. I assume the low intelligence of Pygmies is novel not primitive, remember they are paedomorphic humans this is why they don't reach full height. Full adult IQ would be more remarkable. Greg's view of pygmies reflects mawkish but impossible ideas of Pygmies as pristine Paleolithic people in the modern day forests. They're not.

    On the other hand Mike Hammer did find that archaic substrate in their DNA.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,199
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    This old 2002 paper cites someone that Kalahari hunter gatherer women (Capoids) have a significant mid-cycle peak of sexual behaviour like other cattarrhines. I'm just adding it for interest because I agree with the paper's authors, we would probably see it here were it not masked by our culture.

    http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/9/2243.full

Similar Threads

  1. Post Count Regression
    By Scear in forum Help & Suggestions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: Sunday, August 3rd, 2008, 08:43 AM
  2. Who here count Reivers as ancestors?
    By Boerncian in forum Genealogy & Ancestry DNA
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: Thursday, May 25th, 2006, 03:59 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •