Comments on: Small Girls with Sharp Rocks http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2006/06/09/small-girls-with-sharp-rocks/ A blog about life, past and future. Written by DISCOVER contributing editor and columnist Carl Zimmer. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:00:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Bradford Cambron MD http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2006/06/09/small-girls-with-sharp-rocks/comment-page-1/#comment-36649 Bradford Cambron MD Sat, 24 Jul 2010 21:50:40 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2006/06/09/small-girls-with-sharp-rocks/#comment-36649 How about the find of 100,00 + year old apparent tools on Crete? How was Australia populated 14,000 odd years ago; I doubt it was really on a log in a hurricane. Nan Madol is more recent around Micronesia but it held legends of resettling on top of an older site. Someone has pointed out that boat types of Celts, Egyptians and Phoenicians are rather similar. I have a personal theory that the association of jaguar and dwarfs in Ancient Latin America occurred because arrivals overland across the Bering Strait later met Polynesian arrivals who had some training in early "Eastern" ways such as meditation (the way a jaguar sits quiet and patient until the time to strike) but that some partial allopatric speciation had occurred and the sexual unions may have resulted often in physical deformities. Maps that "aliens" made could be hand-me-downs from old interglacial periods. Hominids are quite vindictive and tend to wipe out the remains of tribes that they conquer, I personally believe this is part of the dearth of hominid artifacts in general. Then big folks might create lore about gnomes, elfs, leprechauns, pixies, sprites, etc and small folks might have spoken of ogres, trolls and giants. Speaking of ancient holdover legends, what if a few dinosaur - types were still around some millenia ago before slain by individuals full of bravado and valor. What about feathered serpents? I have not read these blogs word for word yet; did you mention that the foot bones (and tool production type) of the H Floresiensis may seem more like Homo Erectus than H sapiens? Regarding tool size; hand size is of course important but so is prey size. I have heard it said that the Clovis Point culture of large points were likely made for megafauna but most were eventually wiped out by (?hunting and) the "little ice age": After that small points came into vogue. How about the find of 100,00 + year old apparent tools on Crete? How was Australia populated 14,000 odd years ago; I doubt it was really on a log in a hurricane. Nan Madol is more recent around Micronesia but it held legends of resettling on top of an older site. Someone has pointed out that boat types of Celts, Egyptians and Phoenicians are rather similar. I have a personal theory that the association of jaguar and dwarfs in Ancient Latin America occurred because arrivals overland across the Bering Strait later met Polynesian arrivals who had some training in early “Eastern” ways such as meditation (the way a jaguar sits quiet and patient until the time to strike) but that some partial allopatric speciation had occurred and the sexual unions may have resulted often in physical deformities.
Maps that “aliens” made could be hand-me-downs from old interglacial periods. Hominids are quite vindictive and tend to wipe out the remains of tribes that they conquer, I personally believe this is part of the dearth of hominid artifacts in general. Then big folks might create lore about gnomes, elfs, leprechauns, pixies, sprites, etc and small folks might have spoken of ogres, trolls and giants. Speaking of ancient holdover legends, what if a few dinosaur – types were still around some millenia ago before slain by individuals full of bravado and valor. What about feathered serpents?
I have not read these blogs word for word yet; did you mention that the foot bones (and tool production type) of the H Floresiensis may seem more like Homo Erectus than H sapiens?
Regarding tool size; hand size is of course important but so is prey size. I have heard it said that the Clovis Point culture of large points were likely made for megafauna but most were eventually wiped out by (?hunting and) the “little ice age”: After that small points came into vogue.

]]> By: Peter Nielsen http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2006/06/09/small-girls-with-sharp-rocks/comment-page-1/#comment-3076 Peter Nielsen Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:50:39 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2006/06/09/small-girls-with-sharp-rocks/#comment-3076 New to paleo-archaeological debates, I see how the field is unnecessarily diminished by the historical division between "out of Africa" and "regionalist" camps, in the Homo floresiensis discussion for example. Human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)/Y-chromosome phylogeography shows very strongly that homo sapiens came "out of Africa". But such explanation is generally too totalistic. Both sides tend to illogically totalise, fail to mention or see that, while homo sapiens and the hominid genus almost certainly came "out of Africa", Homo Erectus probably came out of Asia (Kohn 2006). Some homo erectus ancestors and other hominids may also have come "out of Asia". This difference between homo erectus, homo sapiens centres of endemism is very telling, has implications. As I explain in (paper 5 page 6 of) my ebook at www.nodrift.com/vol_5/5.1.pdf : "SEXUAL SELECTION THUS MOST IMPORTANT FOR HOMO SAPIENS . . . evolutionary considerations AND homo sapiens evolving in AA Africa, coming "Out of [AA] Africa", not "Out of [IR] Asia", page 5, imply a corollary: Conventions are very much a product of sexual selection. Sexual selection has thus evidently been more important than natural selection in evolution of homo sapiens, in contrast to evolution of homo erectus, where natural selection may have been more important than sexual selection." New to paleo-archaeological debates, I see how the field is unnecessarily diminished by the historical division between “out of Africa” and “regionalist” camps, in the Homo floresiensis discussion for example. Human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)/Y-chromosome phylogeography shows very strongly that homo sapiens came “out of Africa”.

But such explanation is generally too totalistic. Both sides tend to illogically totalise, fail to mention or see that, while homo sapiens and the hominid genus almost certainly came “out of Africa”, Homo Erectus probably came out of Asia (Kohn 2006). Some homo erectus ancestors and other hominids may also have come “out of Asia”.

This difference between homo erectus, homo sapiens centres of endemism is very telling, has implications. As I explain in (paper 5 page 6 of) my ebook at http://www.nodrift.com/vol_5/5.1.pdf :

“SEXUAL SELECTION THUS MOST IMPORTANT FOR HOMO SAPIENS
. . . evolutionary considerations AND homo sapiens evolving in AA Africa, coming “Out of [AA] Africa”, not “Out of [IR] Asia”, page 5, imply a corollary:

Conventions are very much a product of sexual selection. Sexual selection has thus evidently been more important than natural selection in evolution of homo sapiens, in contrast to evolution of homo erectus, where natural selection may have been more important than sexual selection.”

]]> By: Charles http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2006/06/09/small-girls-with-sharp-rocks/comment-page-1/#comment-3075 Charles Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:52:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2006/06/09/small-girls-with-sharp-rocks/#comment-3075 It strikes me that the arguments that isolate the Flores homenims as deformed are based upon the idea that H.Sap is unique. It is similar to the assumptions that kept behaviorists from looking at tool use in "sub-human" species from chimps to birds. The view seems to be that humans are "special" It strikes me that the arguments that isolate the Flores homenims as deformed are based upon the idea that H.Sap is unique. It is similar to the assumptions that kept behaviorists from looking at tool use in “sub-human” species from chimps to birds. The view seems to be that humans are “special”

]]>