Could it have been possible for Cromagnons to have been found in Asia, Middle East, or Africa? At what point did Cromagnons give way to modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Or what caused CMs to disappear. It seems that modern day historians refer to CMs from the period preceding ~15,000 BC. Why is this?
2.7182818284590... wrote: on, 12/05/2008 06:34: > Could it have been possible for Cromagnons to have been found in Asia, > Middle East, or Africa? At what point did Cromagnons give way to > modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Or what caused CMs to disappear. It > seems that modern day historians refer to CMs from the period > preceding ~15,000 BC. Why is this?
On May 12, 3:21 am, Peter Alaca <p.al...@purple.invalid> wrote:
> 2.7182818284590... wrote: on, 12/05/2008 06:34: > > Could it have been possible for Cromagnons to have been found in Asia, > > Middle East, or Africa? At what point did Cromagnons give way to > > modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Or what caused CMs to disappear. It > > seems that modern day historians refer to CMs from the period > > preceding ~15,000 BC. Why is this?
We still call them cro-magnon. Clash of the Caveman: Neanderthal vs. Cromagnon was recently released on the history channel. I understand that lots of people want to be politically correct, but what's typically thought of as a cro-magnon is alot more robust and a good bit taller than a Natufian or Solutrean. Some cro-magnons even have neanderthal traits, suggesting hybridization. I haven't heard that about mungo men, Solutreans, or Natufians, roughly their contemporaries. So what is so wrong with giving a distinct people a distinct name? It's a very useful name, I think.
J.LyonLayden wrote: on, 15/05/2008 17:14: > On May 12, 3:21 am, Peter Alaca <p.al...@purple.invalid> wrote: >> 2.7182818284590... wrote: on, 12/05/2008 06:34: >>> Could it have been possible for Cromagnons to have been found in Asia, >>> Middle East, or Africa? At what point did Cromagnons give way to >>> modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Or what caused CMs to disappear. It >>> seems that modern day historians refer to CMs from the period >>> preceding ~15,000 BC. Why is this? >> Why Don't We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore?http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.htm
>> -- >> p.a.
> We still call them cro-magnon. Clash of the Caveman: Neanderthal vs. > Cromagnon was recently released on the history channel. > I understand that lots of people want to be politically correct, but > what's typically thought of as a cro-magnon is alot more robust and a > good bit taller than a Natufian or Solutrean. Some cro-magnons even > have neanderthal traits, suggesting hybridization. I haven't heard > that about mungo men, Solutreans, or Natufians, roughly their > contemporaries. So what is so wrong with giving a distinct people a > distinct name? It's a very useful name, I think.
Yes. The link was not because ot the title but because of the (as usual) good introduction by Kris Hirst.
J.LyonLayden wrote: > good bit taller than a Natufian or Solutrean. Some cro-magnons even > have neanderthal traits, suggesting hybridization. I haven't heard
And just what "traits" would those be, suggesting hybridization? Please, provide cites.
It sounds unlikely, given that Cro-Magnon mtDNA falls within the range of modern human variation (and Cro-Magnon were Homo sapiens sapiens rather than H. s. idaltu) and sharply different from Neanderthals.
>On May 12, 3:21 am, Peter Alaca <p.al...@purple.invalid> wrote: >> 2.7182818284590... wrote: on, 12/05/2008 06:34: >> > Could it have been possible for Cromagnons to have been found in Asia, >> > Middle East, or Africa? At what point did Cromagnons give way to >> > modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Or what caused CMs to disappear. It >> > seems that modern day historians refer to CMs from the period >> > preceding ~15,000 BC. Why is this?
>We still call them cro-magnon. Clash of the Caveman: Neanderthal vs. >Cromagnon was recently released on the history channel. >I understand that lots of people want to be politically correct, but >what's typically thought of as a cro-magnon is alot more robust and a >good bit taller than a Natufian or Solutrean. Some cro-magnons even >have neanderthal traits, suggesting hybridization. I haven't heard >that about mungo men, Solutreans, or Natufians, roughly their >contemporaries. So what is so wrong with giving a distinct people a >distinct name? It's a very useful name, I think.
'You' may, a lot of the media may, but archaeologists/anthropologists have virtually abandoned the word. It's a useless name, applied to all sorts of different groups.
You mention the History Channel. The channel with programs on Ancient Egyptian helicopters. Don't believe anything you see there without confirmation from more reliable sources.
Doug Weller wrote: on, 17/05/2008 10:33: > On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:14:04 -0700 (PDT), in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden > wrote:
>> On May 12, 3:21 am, Peter Alaca <p.al...@purple.invalid> wrote: >>> 2.7182818284590... wrote: on, 12/05/2008 06:34: >>>> Could it have been possible for Cromagnons to have been found in Asia, >>>> Middle East, or Africa? At what point did Cromagnons give way to >>>> modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Or what caused CMs to disappear. It >>>> seems that modern day historians refer to CMs from the period >>>> preceding ~15,000 BC. Why is this? >>> Why Don't We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore?http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.htm
>>> -- >>> p.a. >> We still call them cro-magnon. Clash of the Caveman: Neanderthal vs. >> Cromagnon was recently released on the history channel. >> I understand that lots of people want to be politically correct, but >> what's typically thought of as a cro-magnon is alot more robust and a >> good bit taller than a Natufian or Solutrean. Some cro-magnons even >> have neanderthal traits, suggesting hybridization. I haven't heard >> that about mungo men, Solutreans, or Natufians, roughly their >> contemporaries. So what is so wrong with giving a distinct people a >> distinct name? It's a very useful name, I think.
> 'You' may, a lot of the media may, but archaeologists/anthropologists have > virtually abandoned the word. It's a useless name, applied to all sorts > of different groups.
But Neandertal is still called 'Neandertal', and not 'Anatomically Ancient Human' or something like that. As long as it is understood what is meant by it, I see no fundamental difference between calling them 'Cro-Magnon' and 'Anatomically Modern Human' And in normal speech I prefer 'Cro-Magnon' over the use of the abbreviations AMH and EMH.
> You mention the History Channel. The channel with programs on Ancient > Egyptian helicopters. Don't believe anything you see there without > confirmation from more reliable sources.
also, CM seems to have racist connotations. if you look up CM on youtube, you see all kinds of pro-white videos. the CM people are idealized as a "uber race" of people because they were from europe and were quite tall and genocidalists (since they wiped out neandertals).
On May 17, 4:33 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:14:04 -0700 (PDT), in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden > wrote:
> >On May 12, 3:21 am, Peter Alaca <p.al...@purple.invalid> wrote: > >> 2.7182818284590... wrote: on, 12/05/2008 06:34: > >> > Could it have been possible for Cromagnons to have been found in Asia, > >> > Middle East, or Africa? At what point did Cromagnons give way to > >> > modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Or what caused CMs to disappear. It > >> > seems that modern day historians refer to CMs from the period > >> > preceding ~15,000 BC. Why is this?
> >We still call them cro-magnon. Clash of the Caveman: Neanderthal vs. > >Cromagnon was recently released on the history channel. > >I understand that lots of people want to be politically correct, but > >what's typically thought of as a cro-magnon is alot more robust and a > >good bit taller than a Natufian or Solutrean. Some cro-magnons even > >have neanderthal traits, suggesting hybridization. I haven't heard > >that about mungo men, Solutreans, or Natufians, roughly their > >contemporaries. So what is so wrong with giving a distinct people a > >distinct name? It's a very useful name, I think.
> 'You' may, a lot of the media may, but archaeologists/anthropologists have > virtually abandoned the word. It's a useless name, applied to all sorts > of different groups.
> You mention the History Channel. The channel with programs on Ancient > Egyptian helicopters. Don't believe anything you see there without > confirmation from more reliable sources.
> wrote: >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:14:04 -0700 (PDT), in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden >> wrote:
>>> On May 12, 3:21 am, Peter Alaca <p.al...@purple.invalid> wrote: >>>> 2.7182818284590... wrote: on, 12/05/2008 06:34: >>>>> Could it have been possible for Cromagnons to have been found in Asia, >>>>> Middle East, or Africa? At what point did Cromagnons give way to >>>>> modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Or what caused CMs to disappear. It >>>>> seems that modern day historians refer to CMs from the period >>>>> preceding ~15,000 BC. Why is this? >>>> Why Don't We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore?http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.htm >>> We still call them cro-magnon. Clash of the Caveman: Neanderthal vs. >>> Cromagnon was recently released on the history channel. >>> I understand that lots of people want to be politically correct, but >>> what's typically thought of as a cro-magnon is alot more robust and a >>> good bit taller than a Natufian or Solutrean. Some cro-magnons even >>> have neanderthal traits, suggesting hybridization. I haven't heard >>> that about mungo men, Solutreans, or Natufians, roughly their >>> contemporaries. So what is so wrong with giving a distinct people a >>> distinct name? It's a very useful name, I think. >> 'You' may, a lot of the media may, but archaeologists/anthropologists have >> virtually abandoned the word. It's a useless name, applied to all sorts >> of different groups.
>> You mention the History Channel. The channel with programs on Ancient >> Egyptian helicopters. Don't believe anything you see there without >> confirmation from more reliable sources.
> also, CM seems to have racist connotations. if you look up CM on > youtube, you see all kinds of pro-white videos. the CM people are > idealized as a "uber race" of people because they were from europe and > were quite tall and genocidalists (since they wiped out > neandertals).
> > On May 17, 4:33 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk>
> > wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:14:04 -0700 (PDT), in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden > >> wrote:
> >>> On May 12, 3:21 am, Peter Alaca <p.al...@purple.invalid> wrote: > >>>> 2.7182818284590... wrote: on, 12/05/2008 06:34: > >>>>> Could it have been possible for Cromagnons to have been found in Asia, > >>>>> Middle East, or Africa? At what point did Cromagnons give way to > >>>>> modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Or what caused CMs to disappear. It > >>>>> seems that modern day historians refer to CMs from the period > >>>>> preceding ~15,000 BC. Why is this? > >>>> Why Don't We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore?http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.htm > >>> We still call them cro-magnon. Clash of the Caveman: Neanderthal vs. > >>> Cromagnon was recently released on the history channel. > >>> I understand that lots of people want to be politically correct, but > >>> what's typically thought of as a cro-magnon is alot more robust and a > >>> good bit taller than a Natufian or Solutrean. Some cro-magnons even > >>> have neanderthal traits, suggesting hybridization. I haven't heard > >>> that about mungo men, Solutreans, or Natufians, roughly their > >>> contemporaries. So what is so wrong with giving a distinct people a > >>> distinct name? It's a very useful name, I think. > >> 'You' may, a lot of the media may, but archaeologists/anthropologists have > >> virtually abandoned the word. It's a useless name, applied to all sorts > >> of different groups.
> >> You mention the History Channel. The channel with programs on Ancient > >> Egyptian helicopters. Don't believe anything you see there without > >> confirmation from more reliable sources.
> > also, CM seems to have racist connotations. if you look up CM on > > youtube, you see all kinds of pro-white videos. the CM people are > > idealized as a "uber race" of people because they were from europe and > > were quite tall and genocidalists (since they wiped out > > neandertals).
> Did they?
> Btw: why would you look up Cro-magnon on youtube?
> -- > p.a.
Believe it or not, just post cro-magnon youtube and you get 69,500 hits. It helps that there is a band calling itself Cro-Magnon and some other silliness. Such as the Geico ads that it is so simple a caveman cand do it.
On May 17, 12:22 pm, "2.7182818284590..." <tangent1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> also, CM seems to have racist connotations. if you look up CM on > youtube, you see all kinds of pro-white videos. the CM people are > idealized as a "uber race" of people because they were from europe and > were quite tall and genocidalists (since they wiped out > neandertals).
So? That's not the person who coined the term's fault. History Channel might not be a great source, but YouTube is worse. Cr-magnons were pretty uber, though. The vatrious peoples formally described as Cro-Magnons were taller, stronger, more robust, and bigger brained than us. They had the highest technology to date. But mainly what made various prehistoric humans 'Uber" was the lack of the agriculture disease, which devastates the health of a species in its early forms. I don't believe that they wiped out the neanderthals through genocide. It was much too slow for that. But there are plenty of obvious hybrids. The gene theory is mute. We have no way of knowing whether the last carrier of a "hybrid gene" died out 23,000 ybp or 100 ybp, or whether there's one in some remote corner of the world that we haven't tested yet even to this day. We might not even know if we found one, because every neanderthal variation of dna has probably not been preserved for archeologists to find. Mungo man's genes are also extinct, like neanderthals, but he's considered a AMHS. No wait, he's a AMHS/soloensis hybrid. No wait, he really is a AMHS. Hard to keep up with the current political correctness.
