OPINIONS NEEDED.

Random older topics of discussion

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Postby Digit » Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:06 pm

It's not as bad as when I was younger Terry, but I think we still need people to try some of their ideas in the field rather than from the office.
Take the idea of a the Mongolian park and the jokes about killing a Mammoth.
Scientifically such an enterprise would be worthwhile as it could settle a lot of arguments.
A TV programme over here recently suggested that HSN skeletons showed more develeopment on one side than the other, their conclusion was this was caused by using a spear in a stabbing action.
BS! The same development is shown in British archers!
And curiously enough a physio recently told me that I had a greater development on the LH side than she had previously seen. I'm right handed, so make of that what you will.
User avatar
Digit
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Postby Charlie Hatchett » Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:40 pm

It is knapped on both sides in fact that the main problem if you look at the clearly defined knap marks they really do appear rather well done for Neanderthal.


I don't know, Terry. Check out these Neanderthal bifaces:

Neanderthal Bifaces:

Image

Image

_____________________________________________________________

Image

__________________________________________________________

Image

___________________________________________________________

Image

____________________________________________________________

Image

__________________________________________________________


Image

_________________________________________________________


Image


Over it is however representative of objects, which belong to the strangest paleolithic age. These are the so-called „blade tips “, from which in and before the Ilse cave thirteen complete and six broken copies were. It concerns reciprocally worked on, symmetrical points, which are very flat and remind in their form of sheets. With a maximum length of 21 cm they can certainly be called masterpieces of the falling rocks art. More with difficulty will it however to fathom the sense and purpose of these objects. Blade tips are extremely rare in the paleolithic age of Europe, although they occur from England over Belgium and Poland into western Russia. In Germany these forms still occur beside the Ranishöhle in caves in the Altmühltal in Bavaria. They date all to the end of the middle paleolithic age and thus to the end of the time of the Neandertaler. How these objects are to be arranged however in this process, is an open question.

http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... n%26sa%3DG

Charlie Hatchett

PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com
User avatar
Charlie Hatchett
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:58 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Postby Rokcet Scientist » Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:08 pm

Those HN points Charlie posted look a lot more developed than your no.'s 1 and 3 pix, FT. If they're the real deal they could be early HN or late HE, HH, or HA (the latter 2 probably not if they were found in Oz of course).

What about the find location anyhow? A cave? A streambed? Conditions? Was there any stratification they were embedded in that could aid dating?
Rokcet Scientist
 

Tool

Postby fossiltrader » Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:19 pm

No Rocket they from France they actually are part of a museum collection that was sold off these particular pieces i have ben sent were never on display merely stored in a draw for more than 80 years.

Yes charlie see your point now tell me can you see any resemblance between your pics and what i been sent mate?
User avatar
fossiltrader
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:24 am

Re: Tool

Postby Charlie Hatchett » Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:32 pm

fossiltrader wrote:No Rocket they from France they actually are part of a museum collection that was sold off these particular pieces i have ben sent were never on display merely stored in a draw for more than 80 years.

Yes charlie see your point now tell me can you see any resemblance between your pics and what i been sent mate?


Hi ok well as too the material i am waiting on geologists report on that but it does appear to be possibly possibly iron stone but that just a guess i am not a geologist lol.
It is knapped on both sides in fact that the main problem if you look at the clearly defined knap marks they really do appear rather well done for Neanderthal.
Dependant on what the material analysis shows because of the too clear work marks plus the overall appearance and shape and i suppose a certain amount of gut feeling i dont think this neanderthal it definately has been worked or knapped if you like though it doesnt appear to be Neanderthal but thats just my opinion.


To make a definitive statement I need the material type. If it's a very hard material, like flint or chert, then I would say yes, the cuboid artifact resembles several artifacts recovered from the local site. I'm not sure about Australia, but the University of Texas does not appear to address quadrifacial artifacts in their curriculum. :wink:
Charlie Hatchett

PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com
User avatar
Charlie Hatchett
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:58 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Postby Beagle » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:15 pm

I've missed some good discussion here, but a couple of comments. The mistaken notion that Neanderthal may have been physically unable to speak and /or throw overhand has gone by the wayside for the most part in recent years.

Neandertal had the requisite hyoid bone that is essentially identical to ours, enabling him/her to speak as we do. Anatomically, the shoulder joint had a full range of motion. Modern man with barrel chests, such as the Peruvian Indians, are able to throw with ease.

A short response, better late than never. 8)
Beagle
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

speech

Postby fossiltrader » Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:26 pm

To the best of my memory only one hyoid bone was ever found in association with neanderthal remains and i have not yet seen anythig to show that opinion has changed much on possible speech.
User avatar
fossiltrader
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:24 am

Postby Minimalist » Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:01 pm

Yes, unless there have been other finds.

http://sjohn30.tripod.com/id1.html

Still....if one memeber of a species had the bone, why not the others?


The discovery of a Neanderthal hyoid bone in Kebara Cave in Israel has made some anthropologists believe that Neanderthals were capable of complex speech like modern humans. Others believe that the debate over Neanderthals and speech will never end because the soft tissue of the vocal tract cannot fossilize.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15589
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby Beagle » Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:04 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

The idea that Neanderthals lacked complex language was widespread, despite concerns about the accuracy of reconstructions of the Neanderthal vocal tract, until 1983, when a Neanderthal hyoid bone was found at the Kebara Cave in Israel. The hyoid is a small bone that connects the musculature of the tongue and the larynx, and by bracing these structures against each other, allows a wider range of tongue and laryngeal movements than would otherwise be the case. Therefore, it seems to imply the presence of anatomical conditions for speech to occur. The bone that was found is virtually identical to that of modern humans.[13]

Furthermore, the morphology of the outer and middle ear of Neanderthal ancestors, Homo heidelbergensis, found in Spain, suggests they had an auditory sensitivity similar to modern humans and very different from chimpanzees. Therefore, they were not only able to produce a wide range of sounds, they were also able to differentiate between these sounds. [14]

Aside from the morphological evidence above, neurological evidence for potential speech in neanderthalensis exists in the form of the hypoglossal canal. The canal of neanderthalensis is the same size or larger than in modern humans, which are significantly larger than the canal of modern chimpanzees and australopithecines. The canal carries the hypoglossal nerve, which supplies the muscles of the tongue with motor coordination. Researchers indicate that this evidence suggests that neanderthalensis had vocal capabilities similar to, or possibly exceeding that of, modern humans. [15] However, a research team from the University of California, Berkeley, led by David DeGusta, suggests that the size of the hypoglossal canal is not an indicator of speech. His team's research, which shows no correlation between canal size and speech potential, shows there are a number of extant non-human primates and fossilized australopithecines which have equal or larger hypoglossal canal. [16]

Many people believe that even without the hyoid bone evidence, tools as advanced as those of the Mousterian Era, attributed to Neanderthals, could not have been developed without cognitive skills encompassing some form of spoken language.

A great many myths surround the reconstruction of the Neanderthal vocal tract and the quality of Neanderthal speech. The popular view that the Neanderthals had a high larynx and therefore could not have produced the range of vowels supposedly essential for human speech is based on a disputed reconstruction of the vocal tract from the available fossil evidence, and a debatable interpretation of the acoustic characteristics of the reconstructed vocal tract. A larynx position as low as that found for modern female humans may have been present in adult male Neanderthals. Furthermore, the vocal tract is a plastic thing, and larynx movement is possible in many mammals. Finally, the suggestion that the vowels /i, a, u/ are essential for human language (and that if Neanderthals lacked them, they could not have evolved a human-like language) ignores the absence of one of these vowels in very many human languages, and the occurrence of 'vertical vowel systems' which lack both /i/ and /u/.

More doubtful suggestions about Neanderthal speech suggest that it would have been nasalised either because i) the tongue was high in the throat (for which there is no universally accepted evidence), or ii) because the Neanderthals had large nasal cavities. Nasalisation depends on neither of these things, but on whether or not the soft palate is lowered during speech. Nasalisation is therefore controllable, and we have no idea whether Neanderthal speech was nasalised or not. Comments on the lower intelligibility of nasalised speech ignore the fact that many varieties of English habitually have nasalised vowels, particularly low vowels, with no apparent effect on intelligibility.

Finally, suggestions that a 'stout larynx' would result in a higher rate of vibration of the vocal folds and hence a higher percept of pitch are erroneous[citation needed]. If the existence of a 'stout larynx' suggests large vocal folds, these would vibrate relatively slowly, and therefore give a percept of a lower pitch. Any comment about 'pitch levels' ignores the fact that the rate of vocal fold vibration can be changed by altering the tension in the vocal folds and by changing subglottal pressure. In other words, whatever the biological characteristics of the vocal folds, Neanderthal speech would be likely to have shown variation in the rate of vocal fold vibration (perceived as pitch), just as human speech or other mammalian vocalisations, and a non-biologically determined average or default pitch level could have been adopted by actively changing the 'neutral' state of the vocal folds.

One anatomical difference between Neanderthals and humans, that deserves consideration regarding human speech, is the mental tubercle on the mandible (the point at the tip of the chin), which is the attachment point for the depressor labii inferioris muscle and the mentalis muscle. These two muscles provide fine motor control of the lower lip, and are essential in controlled speech. The mental tubercle is pronounced in humans and is absent in Neanderthals, suggesting that they had a more gross motor control of the lower lip. More work needs to be done on this topic.



I realize that there are a lot of "old school" folks, especially in academia, that continue to believe that Neanderthal was the primitive "caveman with a club" that said "ugh", but recently that viewpoint has changed with most scientists that are directly involved in researching him/her.
Beagle
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Postby AD » Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:24 pm

Hello fossiltrader...

I've been enjoying your very interesting contributions to the forum.

At the risk of opening a big can of worms, I'd like to present some artifact material I collected on a hike through the NSW "bushland" during a two week visit with my daughter last year while she was doing a semester at Macquarie University in Sydney. At your convenience, please take a look at http://www.daysknob.com/Australia.htm .

Incidentally, aside from the thirty hours of travel each direction, in every aspect I thoroughly enjoyed my stay in your country. And with that unique flora and fauna, for the first few days it seemed like I was on another planet. If I happen to get deported from here for archaeological heresy, you folks may have to put up with me on a long term basis.

Regards, Alan
User avatar
AD
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:39 pm
Location: Southeastern Ohio

Postby Digit » Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

If those points were crafted by HSN he was better at it than me! :lol: Sort of settles any ideas of clumsyness or cognitve abilty I'd say.
Mind you, they did have bigger brains than us.
User avatar
Digit
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Thank You I feel Better now.

Postby fossiltrader » Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:06 am

Happy to look at most things lol as long as they rock.Problem we have here is the laws i cannot even do a ground survey without a permit and they take some getting and of course the endless readinglol.

http://www.austlii.org/au/journals/SydLRev/1997/30.html


http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/artcrime/young.pdf
User avatar
fossiltrader
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:24 am

Postby Rokcet Scientist » Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:12 am

AD wrote:
I'd like to present some artifact material I collected on a hike through the NSW "bushland". [...] At your convenience, please take a look at http://www.daysknob.com/Australia.htm.



Maybe it's me, or the photos, but I don't see any recognizable shapes where the captions say they are supposed to be, Alan. Does anyone else see them?
Rokcet Scientist
 

Postby Digit » Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:10 am

Don't think the 'tools' Chimps use have any recognisable shape or form RS, but they do the job. Frankly, man's earliest tools would probably not even have been 'worked.'
User avatar
Digit
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Postby Forum Monk » Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:16 am

Digit wrote:Don't think the 'tools' Chimps use have any recognisable shape or form RS, but they do the job. Frankly, man's earliest tools would probably not even have been 'worked.'

Yeah, if you need a sharp rock, its probably easier to find one than make one.
Forum Monk
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: USA

PreviousNext

Return to Archived Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron