| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
|
Why does he need tools? If he's got a dog he can kill the animals with that and then just wear the leftovers. He could even train the dog to butcher the animal carcass. "You get the marylebone jelly and the offal, Fido, leave the muscle for us and clean out the hide."
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
The next thing you know, Fido and Lassie are playing Tug o' War, with a seal skin that Cro-Magnon has promised his missus....he dives on it and gets dragged across the ice.
Cro-Magnon invents rapid transport.
(You will recognize Fido from his previous picture...that's him, second from the back, on the right.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| So he has clothes; he probably also has a few tools and weapons made from bone and narwhal tusks and the like |
At the risk of repeating myself till I'm blue with frostbite, no human can survive in Arctic conditions with a bit of blubber and some bone picks. They'd need time to produce implements and develop their skills in a less harsh environment, the cold would've done for them long before the sealskins were put on. {In a docu-drama about following in the footsteps of Shackleton one of the team mentioned that reindeer skins used as sleeping-bags became frozen blocks of ice, instead of keeping the body within warm.}
To make shelters and clothes, hunt and fish, in short to survive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Blue is the colour, Hatty is the name...
Name one environment that a clothesless human being would survive in once you factor winter and nights into the equation. Maybe tropical rainforest but like I said before even there everybody seem to go in for thick fur. But polar/ aquatic mammals... mmm... quite a different story...blubber is perfecto.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
Young Cro-Magnon tries out the latest seal skin swimwear.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| I said it a long time ago (this is a post retrieved from elsewhere) though apologies if I was wrong then too. |
Thought so... but couldn't find it.
| The great point about clothes is that you can reduce all that ridiculous blubber you've had to lug about all those years. But after a few more years, and now blubber-free, you can't survive without clothes. |
Hmm. That was my point: humans are not cold-adapted. Ishmael would crucify you for suggesting there must have been an Arctic primate that there is no longer any sign of. I would just find it hard to imagine why we would be so radically un-adapted so soon.
But...
Do we actually know anything about the rate of evolution? What would [shhh] Stephen Jay Gould and the punctuated equilibrium boys have to say about the punctuation marks? We're always hearing about species on the brink of extinction because their habitat is shrinking (usually due to human intervention), so what's all this about wandering about encountering new conditions and gradually adapting to them? The fact is -- isn't it? -- that species 'never' cross over into another ecology. (Cf. humans staying put and eating their own children in times of crisis rather than embarking on mass migrations.)
So what chance do we have of observing anything useful about rate of change when something radical does happen? Like humans losing blubber or changing skin and hair colours?
---
On the other hand, if you're already cold-adapted -- how do you handle those Solutrean/Eskimo bone needles if your hands are covered in blubber? -- why would you start wearing skins? If it's better to be warmer, then you still need the blubber that the skins augment. If it's OK to be as cold as you were, by removing redundant blubber, then there was no point in starting to wear skins.
If the radical departure was the one from the frozen north into no-colder climes, wouldn't everyone be naked, ranging from fat to thin? Unless the modern-ness, the Cro-Magnon-ness, arose somewhere else and these skinny-butt people eradicated all the variably-lardies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose I'd better tell you the correct answer so you can do this. It goes like this
1. Glaciation destroys fossils
2. Since glaciation destroyed all the fossils it follows that glaciation got them all.
3. But that means in turn that Cro-Magnon must have had a direct relationship with the ice otherwise we're reduced to special pleading claiming that it was a fluke that he lived in areas later covered by ice..
4. Only one human culture has a direct relationship with ice -- the Esquimaux.
5. Therefore Cro-Magnon started off as Esquimaux.. |
I disagree with 3.
It's not that much of a fluke. North America is a big place and a great place for humans to evolve. As is Europe, where the Cro Magnons certainly were, and without any special relationship to ice.
If we don't need to stick to 40 000BP and can assume modern man was in America, say before 120 000BP (random figure just to be on par with other homo sapiens, but in fact, there is evidence of man in North America in the remote past), that means we don't need to be Polar Man, we can just regular Modern Man. He then has time to develop technology, whether it's tools or even something more exciting like agriculture. Whatever, it will be lost when the glaciation happens.
At that point the people can either adapt or leave. They can move south or set sail. They may have done both.
There are waves of 'cro magnon' men in Atlantic Europe after the start of the ice age -- each turning up needing a new name (eg Solutrean, Aurignacian, Magdalenian etc) on the basis of their differences from the last lot.
Obviously I'm struggling with the dating though!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
DP Crisp wrote
| If it's OK to be as cold as you were, by removing redundant blubber, then there was no point in starting to wear skins. |
But wouldn't you have to absorb an enormous number of calories to maintain all that blubber?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| It's not that much of a fluke. North America is a big place and a great place for humans to evolve |
So how come the continent isn't littered with pre-35,000 fossils (or pre-12,000 BP ones come to that)?
| As is Europe, where the Cro Magnons certainly were, and without any special relationship to ice. |
Exactimondo! So we know that European Cro-Magnons had left the ice!
| If we don't need to stick to 40 000BP |
I thought we had agreed that fossils up to that date were reliable (because of carbon dating). I certainly assume they are.
| He then has time to develop technology, whether it's tools or even something more exciting like agriculture. Whatever, it will be lost when the glaciation happens. |
No! In order to get this evidence erased by the glaciation everything must have happened in Canada ie north of the line-of-furthest-glaciation. This is special pleading because if Mod Man was in Canada doing ordinary things there is nothing to stop him being anywhere (indeed everywhere) in North America. Only my scheme explains this. If you want to rely on the ice as destroyer you have to rely on ice as maker.
| At that point the people can either adapt or leave. They can move south or set sail. They may have done both. |
Correct! And we know when that point was because it is the first time evidence appears in areas that were never glaciated. It was precisely 35 000 BP in Alaska and Siberia. Now you just have to come up with a reason why this moment was so momentous in the long (and up till then very dim) existence of Cro-Magnon and the whole story becomes clear. What happened in 35 000 BP that had never happened before in the entire existence of Modern Human Beings?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| So how come the continent isn't littered with pre-35,000 fossils (or pre-12,000 BP ones come to that)? |
Where is though? Nowhere seems to be 'littered' with ancient man, not even the areas where we appear to have firmly established him as living.
And there are ancient fossils in North America....
Even if we looked only to the accepted 30 000BP dates, don't they place Modern Man in America before the end of the ice age? (I'm confused!)
| Exactimondo! So we know that European Cro-Magnons had left the ice! |
But it doesn't follow they came from the ice. As in, were 'Polar People'. Not to me anyway.
I am, however, open to the suggestion that the sudden presence of ice in America prompted them to arrive in Europe.
| I thought we had agreed that fossils up to that date were reliable (because of carbon dating). I certainly assume they are. |
I don't think of carbon dating as reliable beyond calibration but that is a small point. I'm working on the basis of other, earlier, dates that have been established by other dating techniques. These other dating techniques also have problems, but where more than one is applied and they agree with each other, I can't think why they should be considered less sound than carbon dating. But they do come with a warning I agree.
No! In order to get this evidence erased by the glaciation everything must have happened in Canada ie north of the line-of-furthest-glaciation. This is special pleading because if Mod Man was in Canada doing ordinary things there is nothing to stop him being anywhere (indeed everywhere) in North America. Only my scheme explains this.
If you want to rely on the ice as destroyer you have to rely on ice as maker. |
I think this is a non sequitur. For example, the Minoans disappeared after a natural disaster, and had technology in advance of other people of the time in a relatively close geographical region. But we don't think of them as the 'Earthquake People' and explain how they developed their flushing toilets because they set themselves up on Santorini! The earthquake only explains how the culture disappeared. (It's not a great analogy I know!)
There is evidence of pre-ice age man in America -- and some of it suggestive of presence in the remote past.
For example, there is (controversial) evidence of man in South Carolina at 50 000BP (carbon dating on charcoal deposits). But until there is investigation of 'pre-clovis' layers -- we aren't going to know for sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topper_(archaeological_site)
| Correct! And we know when that point was because it is the first time evidence appears in areas that were never glaciated. It was precisely 35 000 BP in Alaska and Siberia. Now you just have to come up with a reason why this moment was so momentous in the long (and up till then very dim) existence of Cro-Magnon and the whole story becomes clear. What happened in 35 000 BP that had never happened before in the entire existence of Modern Human Beings? |
Where does the 35 000BP come from -- evidence of what appears in areas never glaciated? That isn't a rhetorical question -- I'm simply not following you.
What did happen in 35 000BP?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| But wouldn't you have to absorb an enormous number of calories to maintain all that blubber? |
But isn't the richness and availability of the Arctic food larder one of most persuasive arguments in support of human development on the ice? You need a diet high in protein of which meat and fish are excellent sources. (We keep hearing that fish eating cultures as in Japan and Iceland are healthier than anyone else's).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
So how come the continent isn't littered with pre-35,000 fossils (or pre-12,000 BP ones come to that)?
Where is though? Nowhere seems to be 'littered' with ancient man, not even the areas where we appear to have firmly established him as living. |
I was being poetic. The point is either archaeology or fossils of Cro-Magnon are found wherever he is known to be (a slightly circular argument but still). Even where we can be pretty sure he is in tiny numbers eg the tip of Patagonia in 8000 BP we find his evidence. It is the sheer lack of any remains anywhere before 40,000 that has led orthodoxy (in my estimation) to conjure something out of nothing.
| And there are ancient fossils in North America...Even if we looked only to the accepted 30 000BP dates, don't they place Modern Man in America before the end of the ice age? (I'm confused!) |
No. Or at least No, but can you check? There are pre-30 000 dates in Alaska but not in North America south of the ice sheets, which lasted coast to coast along the present US/Canadian border until 12,000 BP (the end of the last 'Ice Age'). We hear of earlier stuff from orthodoxy occasionally (and frequently from the Crazies) but as far as I know it is still the Official Version that Man arrived in the US of A in 12,000 BP ono.
Exactimondo! So we know that European Cro-Magnons had left the ice!
But it doesn't follow they came from the ice. As in, were 'Polar People'. Not to me anyway. |
Nor to anyone directly. But if you can show that evidence turns up at the right time and in the right place and nowhere else, then the circumstantial evidence is compelling. This is the agreed evidence for Cro-Magnon (not for anatomically modern man)
1. 35, 000 glaciation reaches its most easterly extent along the Alaskan/ Canada border.
2. 35,000 Cro-Magnon archaeology turns up in Beringia
3. Nothing earlier than that anywhere west of the glaciation
4. 12,000 glaciation disappears from Canada/US border
5. 12,000 Cro-Magnon (ie Clovis) turns up in USA
6. Nothing earlier than 12,000 south of the glaciation
| I am, however, open to the suggestion that the sudden presence of ice in America prompted them to arrive in Europe. |
Well, let's not say Europe since that's a hell of a way to go (and the evidence is much later). Let's just say that the presence of ice in America prompted Cro-Magnon to show up in the Old World.
| I don't think of carbon dating as reliable beyond calibration but that is a small point. I'm working on the basis of other, earlier, dates that have been established by other dating techniques. These other dating techniques also have problems, but where more than one is applied and they agree with each other, I can't think why they should be considered less sound than carbon dating. But they do come with a warning I agree. |
As you wish. But I think our discussions have illustrated that these 'other methods' do not have the same validity as carbon-dating. However, you should simply switch over from "anatomically modern humans" to "Cro-Magnon" in order to stay on board.
If you want to rely on the ice as destroyer you have to rely on ice as maker.
I think this is a non sequitor. For example, the Minoans disappeared after a natural disaster, and had technology in advance of other people of the time in a relatively close geographical region. But we don't think of them as the 'Earthquake People' and explain how they developed their flushing toilets because they set themselves up on Santorini! The earthquake only explains how the culture disappeared. (It's not a great analogy I know!) |
No, it isn't. Especially as we do think of the Minoans as the Earthquake People! The Minoans disappeared because of an earthquake. Or so orthodoxy supposes. But of course earthquakes preserve archaeology so, indeed, your example is not well chosen. When you can think of something similar to glaciation, let me know and I will factor it into the theory.
Correct! And we know when that point was because it is the first time evidence appears in areas that were never glaciated. It was precisely 35 000 BP in Alaska and Siberia. Now you just have to come up with a reason why this moment was so momentous in the long (and up till then very dim) existence of Cro-Magnon and the whole story becomes clear. What happened in 35 000 BP that had never happened before in the entire existence of Modern Human Beings?
Where does the 35 000BP come from -- evidence of what appears in areas never glaciated? That isn't a rhetorical question -- I'm simply not following you. |
The earliest Cro-Magnon archaeology dates from the period 35-40,000 and is reported in Beringia, the Middle East and Australia. This is still the orthodox version since even they concede that these (alleged) earlier findings of anatomically modern man (100,000 in Israel, 200,000 in Africa) lack the very diagnostic Cro-Magnon toolkit (basically anything other than a hand-axe).
| What did happen in 35 000BP? |
I told you. Cro-Magnon arrived for the first time in the Old World. All you have to do is ask yourself what was waiting for him in the Old World?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
The main problem with this business of Cro-Magnon being attached to the ice, as far as I see it is this:
Prior to taking up permanent residence on the ice, he has spent...well however long was needed....becoming adapted to the arctic marine environment. He has a nice thick layer of blubber to keep him warm and he must have been well able to supply himself with plenty of calories to maintain that blubber.
When he pulls himself up onto the ice...(and we are not talking about lying on an ice float basking in the sun -- we're talking about surviving full time out of the water)...he has two major problems. Firstly, it's a hell of a lot colder when the sun goes in and the wind picks up, out of the water than it is in it...and secondly, all that blubber he's carrying around is going to make him pretty immobile out of the water and it isn't going to be as easy for him to catch his dinner on the ice as it was in the water.
All in all, the temptation to dive back into the sea and resume his natural way of life, in the more clement environment to which he has spent so long adapting must have been overwhelming.
The only way he would have stayed on the ice, was if he had no option...and the sea was no longer accessible to him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Firstly, it's a hell of a lot colder when the sun goes in and the wind picks up, out of the water than it is in it...and secondly, all that blubber he's carrying around is going to make him pretty immobile out of the water and it isn't going to be as easy for him to catch his dinner on the ice as it was in the water. |
Such a relief that you've picked up on this too, no amount of blubber is protection enough against Arctic wind coupled with wetness. Unless it wasn't Arctic when he first emerged (there's a huge question mark over the lengths of periods of glaciation) thus allowing him time to develop tools (sorry to keep harping on) and make friends with wolves.
Travelling on two legs on ice is pretty tricky, conversely getting through snow would be a good deal easier upright.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Two things, Chad. Nothing I have said so far compels the assumption that Cro-Magnon had a direct relationship to the ice. For advancing glaciation to destroy his evidence it only require he have an indirect relationship to the ice. If he lived on, for instance, the tundra and never even saw ice, the situation still holds. Nonetheless we have been assuming pro tem that an eskimo/polar bear type existence was the norm for Cro-Magnon.
In which case surely the sea will always be available. It is inconceivable (except via special pleading) that some Cro-Magnons somewhere will be able to reach their accustomed habitat.
However I do accept your strictures about the possible very grave difficulties faced by some Cro-Magnons in some areas. This is why it is imperative you identify the factor that these Cro-Magnons found in the Old World that allowed them to escape their potential doom.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
