Human origins, In a nutshell

[kerbiloid]

Peace, of course.

[Diche Bach]

I started studying anthropology in 1984. It is remarkable how much more is known with some certainty now; but it is also remarkable how much knowledge has pretty much stayed the same. The other thing I came to realize about the paleo-anthro research clique: they like to make taxonomic speculation based on far less than minimal amounts of evidence, and are completely disinterested in anything like experimental confirmation. (e.g., tests to prove that the various fossil landmarks used to diagnose "species" are valid and reliable indices). "Discovering" a new species seems to get tenure, even if 10 years from now the consensus might be that your "species" was nothing more than a regional variant.

[magnemoe]

17 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Still don't understand how a murderous ape could mutate into a peaceful paleohuman and then again into a murderous human.

Also, the paleohumans' axes and spears look enough agressive. Not sure if they really made a difference between a deer and an alien in alien deer mask.
The initiation rituals also look not very kindly. Mostly they are about "killed-died-eaten-thrown out-reborn". The same with young hunters/robbers teams terrorising the neighbor tribes.

About the neaders there was something several days ago.
http://www.livescience.com/55343-neanderthal-cannibalism-northern-europe.html

 

Yes apes are not humans, they are far more violent than humans.
Best template would be near modern time hunger gatherers, my guess is that its lots of variations as this is very cultural. 
An offset in that most near modern time hunter gatherer lived in very marginal areas, very resource poor but also huge distance between tribes. 
people who lived in jungle might be the best template as they would live far closer 

And again humans are not violent if you compared to most apes. We have wars but that is more about large scale organisation. Wars are also rare as its not an common reason for deaths, exception is some tribal groups who was involved in lots of wars. This however came long after agriculture. Agriculture was required for this too as an warrior tribe could prey on farmers. it would be far harder before farming, as it would not be huge food caches and mammoths was less dangerous to hunt than other hunters. 


 

[Green Baron]

14 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

I started studying anthropology in 1984. It is remarkable how much more is known with some certainty now; but it is also remarkable how much knowledge has pretty much stayed the same. The other thing I came to realize about the paleo-anthro research clique: they like to make taxonomic speculation based on far less than minimal amounts of evidence, and are completely disinterested in anything like experimental confirmation. (e.g., tests to prove that the various fossil landmarks used to diagnose "species" are valid and reliable indices). "Discovering" a new species seems to get tenure, even if 10 years from now the consensus might be that your "species" was nothing more than a regional variant.

So we're almost collegues :-) I studied prehistory and as sidesubjects palaeo-anthropology and palaeontology in the late 2000s, just for fun, i don't work in the field. Must admit that it's difficult to keep up-to-date since away from the resources of the university. Just bought a new bookshelf ...

Yep, that wonders. There is/was a tendency to open up new species on the base of a single bone- or toothfragment, especially in forms pre-dating homo erectus. And not much was gained about the early forms since then. "Lucy" being probably the most important. The "Hobbits" have been newly datet and like some may have suspected are now much older than initially proclaimed :-)

With Homo erectus it seems that finds become more numerous and things clearer. Am thinking of Atapuerca, Dmanisi, Tautavel ... and with the appearance of early modern humans in Africa and neandertals in Europe, that had a greater impact in the record, things are getting even better. Since the last warm-phase (OIS-5) finds are numerous enough to start a cultural/specieswise classification based on the make and form of stone- and later-on bonetools, so for homo sapiens and subspecies neandertal these assessments have been made, for earlier forms including Homo erectus not.

 

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Green Baron said:

 

You can do so in a lifetime. Our behavior is not totally controlled by genes, it's also and much more dependent on cultur and tradition. It is not "built in" to kill each other, in fact most humans (i know) are pretty peaceful.

You're judging from your perspective, and that is filled with terrible pictures, wars and since two decades intense terrorism, but it's money (resources), ideology and strive for power that produces these things (aka culture), it's not built into human beings by default.

I tell you, that was not always the case, and this is the link to human origins :-)

!! Speculation (there are only a few archaeological hints in cave-art) !!: Just try to imagine a different ideology, shamanism, that teaches a spirit in everything and a link between everything. Couldn't that be a ground for peaceful coexistence ? I am not preaching here, hope you get me right ;-)

Peace, brother :-)

 

that reality is media created, how many people do you know who has been killed or even suffered serious violence? That is reality not that the media show to get clicks. On slow news days lot's of mundane accidents from all over the world pops up.

This is how media have worked in 150 years

[Diche Bach]

On 7/15/2016 at 10:37 AM, Green Baron said:

So we're almost collegues :-) I studied prehistory and as sidesubjects palaeo-anthropology and palaeontology in the late 2000s, just for fun, i don't work in the field. Must admit that it's difficult to keep up-to-date since away from the resources of the university. Just bought a new bookshelf ...

Yep, that wonders. There is/was a tendency to open up new species on the base of a single bone- or toothfragment, especially in forms pre-dating homo erectus. And not much was gained about the early forms since then. "Lucy" being probably the most important. The "Hobbits" have been newly datet and like some may have suspected are now much older than initially proclaimed :-)

With Homo erectus it seems that finds become more numerous and things clearer. Am thinking of Atapuerca, Dmanisi, Tautavel ... and with the appearance of early modern humans in Africa and neandertals in Europe, that had a greater impact in the record, things are getting even better. Since the last warm-phase (OIS-5) finds are numerous enough to start a cultural/specieswise classification based on the make and form of stone- and later-on bonetools, so for homo sapiens and subspecies neandertal these assessments have been made, for earlier forms including Homo erectus not.

 

That is very cool about the increasing abundance of H. erectus material! So now, not only do "chimpanzees have culture" but ape-men do too!

I've always thought that a specimen of Homo e would be an absolute nightmare to encounter in a dark alley if he/she was in a bad mood and wanted your ham sandwich.

So are the early homo/australo forms still replete with "species" designations based on little more than single bones?

[Green Baron]

I doubt that chimpanzees have "culture", but culture is a very soft expression and maybe a chimpanzee guy sees that totally different .

A fully developed "culture" with art (cave art, stone paintings), adornment on body and clothes, music (flutes from the swabian alb), figurines (swabian alb as well) is usually connected to modern humans from roughly 45.000yrs on. Neandertals seemingly did not develop that diversity, but it is assumed that the latter were very few at that time, while modern humans spread out rather quickly (increasing number of find sites). Nevertheless i am a little fond of the Neandertals (maybe more than others) and thus expanded "culture" a little.

When we see an ensemble of stone tools from late neandertal sites (mousterien, chatelperronien, aka late middle palaelothic) and early aurignacian (first modern humans in europe, aka early upper palaeolithic) it's usually quite clear to distinguish the one from the other. Though they lived side by side over a long period of time they left different "finger prints". Late find sites can suggest that neandertals were just beginning to start a "cultural" development, influenced by contact with modern humans.

Why should it be a nightmare to meet an erectus (i lump them together, there are different forms) ? An erectus still had to duck and cover when a cave bear or lion was out hunting. My speculation is: we would probably not be able to communicate fluently but he/she would be able to learn basic things rather quickly, maybe including a complex language if physiology permits (i don't know).

About "australos" and "pithecos": I'm 10 years behind now, that never had my interest as much as the ice age, but i think the basic classification hasn't changed much. "Lucy" is the most complete individual that exists from before 2.6my. But i fear the habit you discribe hasn't changed.

If you're interested, a lot has been written and published ... :-)