I’m just finishing up Jared Diamond’s The Third Chimpanzee.
One of the things I picked up on his Great Leap Foward theory is that contact with the Neanderthals actually spurred our advancement. Before then human development went very slowly. It was with the meeting of these two species that humans started to use fully their ability to speak.
Although, it sometimes seems the theory says we evolved the anatomy for speech, but that doesn’t make any sense since he states that fully modern humans appeared over one hundred thousand years ago, but The Leap (and the end of the Neanderthals) occured about sixty thousand years ago.
I’m rather surprised nobody has brought up the former wrestler Hacksaw Jim Duggan yet – he strongly resembles the common reconstructions of a typical Neanderthal adult male, aside from not having quite the large, projecting nasomandibular area that is a classic Neanderthal characteristic.
Don’t know about the “strategizing”, but there is independent evidence they weren’t as creative as we are.
While Neanderthals DID possess tools and artifacts, and possibly even ritual, based upon the archealogical record, their artifacts are very static and consistent across both time and space. This is most certainly not the case with our species of Homo. We seem to have a compulsion to tinker, improve, alter, and engage in functionally unnecessary variations (in other words, style and fashion). This sudden creativity might have been the Great Leap Forward instead of language - after all, we don’t know how sophiscated the language of H. Sapeins was or wasn’t 50,000 year ago, much less that of the Neanderthals which could have just as easily been as sophiscated as any modern tongue. Limitations in producing sounds may not have been an insurmountable obstacle - there are languages today that use comparatively few phonemes. We DO, however, have evidence that their tools and property were (by our standards) amazingly stereotypical and unchanging… which is our strongest evidence to date that they did think differently than us.
The rear of the brain also deals with vision. Maybe they needed to store visual memories in exacting detail? Pre-literate societies value good memory, and as a hunter-gather (or gather-hunter) remembering where food is in the landscape, location of raw materials, and how to get back to the main campsite are all very valuable talents.
]
How do you figure? My understanding (which comes from taking anthropology courses as well as reading books and articles, not to mention having a Stanford-educated anthropology professor for a father) is that Cro-Magnons are us. That is, there is no taxonomic distinction between “Cro-Magnon” and modern humans.
Oops, sorry. I skimmed your OP, not thinking that “answer” would be in the question, and looked more at subsequent posts. My bad. And my understanding is that you are right about “Cro-Magnons.”
As for the psychosocial aspects, I recall reading in the original story about the Oxford scientists that Scots (who have the “ginger gene” in abundance) had a long standing reputation as big, fierce warriors–which would fit. You’re right, it’s a very interesting idea–since the time span we’re talking about is too long for written or even oral history per se but relatively short in the grand scheme of things. So there could still be ripples to the present day that we can’t recognise as such.
Jane Goodall would likely admonish you that we DO have such a species (ever see that documentary “People of the Forest”?) But I get your point: a MORE similar species than are chimpanzees.
Cro-Magnons are a specific ‘race’ or whatever the correct term for it is these days, that lived in a specific part of the world at that time. We are the same species as them, just as we are the same species as older versions of homo sapiens sapiens, but there are physical differences between the Cro-Magnons and the more recent populations living in the same area, and their average brain volume is significantly bigger than your average modern human. This may in part be because of biased sampling (i.e. maybe they crushed the skulls of those that had smaller brains, heh), but it does look like our brains are shrinking, at least up until the last century or so when improved diet and medical care might help (on the other hand, it might be encouraging smaller brained people to survive). The Neandertals had even larger brains, but they are usually not considered homo sapiens sapiens.
Slacker is correct in that there is no taxonomic distinction between Cro-Magnon man and humanity – we belong to the same species and subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens.
But Cro-Magnons represented a small “geographic race” as the term is used today – what makes it easy to tell a “typical” Swede from a “typical” Greek, for example. They were all both brachycephalic and dolichocephalic, for example, and few if any Cro-Magnon phenotypes seem to have been preserved until the present. (The Guanches of the Canary Islands are thought by some competent anthropologists to represent a relict population with largely Cro-Magnon descent.)
I have seen some modern humans that look very neanderthal-like, and that are uglier than sin. This is conclusive proof that Neanderthal DNA is still floating around . . . in fact, I’ll let you all know when my dissertation is complete . . .
Not really. The oldest recognizably Neanderthal skeletons are from the Middle East (Shkul, Qafza, etc.) and are less pronouncedly “classic Neanderthal” than the earlier-discovered but chronologically younger specimens of France and Germany.
Specimens have been found near Zagreb, Croatia; in Turkey; in Uzbekistan; and in the Zagros Mtns., Iran. So the range is significantly larger than “Europe” as that term is normally used.
I originally got it from a passing mention in L. Sprague DeCamp’s debunking of the Atlantis legend, and found it confirmed (as a supportable hypothesis, anyway) in one or two of my wife’s human-evolution texts. I’ll do a little digging and post the source when I find it.