Black Dog

I'm rather impressed with the way you make little distinction between earlier hominids such as Ergaster, Heidelbergensis and Neanderthal etc and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. I find that refreshing, and tend to take that view myself. Sure, Neanderthal was a cousin, most likely, not an ancestor, but as you say, any hominid that buries its dead (most likely) or made tools is nothing like as far from us as people like to think.

However, human development does appear, on occasion, to be capable of quite dramatic change. Such as height, cranial size and even mutations such as that found in the peoples who inhabited Easter Island (an "inbred" deformity of the kneecap). Plainly, some of these may only have taken thousands of years, not tens of thousands. Consider, conversely, Neanderthal's development. Not tremendous, considering how long he inhabited the Levant and Europe: earlier Neanderthals were ofen taller and slighter and became more thick set the longer they settled in Europe.

However, I guess that the original question asked refered to anatomically modern humans, not earlier species or sub species. In which case, we've both answered the same

For my own part, though, I am utterly fascinated and frustrated by early man and the offshoots and variants of the genus Homo.

Any speculation on what happened to the Neanderthals? It seems a little too much like a coincidence that they should fade out just as Sapiens Sapiens gets here. But there were some signs of possibly peaceful interaction- in some areas Neanderthal tools showed signs of being similar to Cro-Magnon tools.

galteeman

In her book and TV series "The Incredible Human Journey" Alice Roberts addresses the question of how our ancestors looked when they left Africa 70,000 years ago.
Here is the model constructed for the show.


As for our ancestors interbreeding with the earlier hominids that went before them, I don't think there is any evidence of that at all. I have read that no traces of their DNA have been found in us as of yet, although that doesn't neccessarily rule it out, albeit on a very small scale. Seemingly it is possible to have an ancestor and not carry any of their dna.
The Chinese (officially) aresaying that they evolved separately from homo erectus in China itself and are not descended from the group that left Africa. According to the Chinese, "Liujiang Man" fossils are evidence of this. Alice Roberts uses a large dna sample to disprove this notion.

galteeman

Black Dog

We share DNA with Neanderthal. We do have common ancestors- but Neanderthal and modern humans parted ways a long time ago. The tricky bit is working out what is uniquely our DNA and what is theirs- no mean task, since we share 99 % of our DNA with Chimpanzees! And we parted company with their ancestors way, way before.

It's a real pity that the fossil record can't show us skin colour or hairyness. Or eye colour. That guy does look mostly negroid, but it was another 30,000 years or so before modern humans reached Europe and possibly a good while before they reached the British Isles (which were probably not islands in our sense).

Edgewaters

Exactly ... if you've seen the reconstructions of some of the Ergaster/Heidelbergensis faces, you'll see faces not dissimilar to some people you've seen walking down the street. Not particularly lowbrow types either.

True, but remember that the climate of Britain (and Europe in general) when these first groups appear was quite a bit warmer than it is today. Nor do they appear to have been well-adapted to temperate conditions; the climate fluctuated between temperate and warmer, because of changes in the Gulf Stream. They left during temperate periods - not glaciation at all, but what we'd regard as fairly balmy weather, especially for England. Evidently, they hadn't yet adapted to these latitudes very well. Neanderthal groups arrived twice, and both times, they stayed put until the ice sheets came - regular fluctuations of cool and warm didn't seem to be enough to oust them. They were far more well adapted to life at those latitudes than earlier groups.

Strangely enough, the Neanderthal settlements of Britain were both longer than the current homo sapiens habitation of the area. Both were over 20 000 years IIRC, whereas the current habitation is only 12 000 years old.

I think they just got assimilated, and then vanished due to sexual selection. We divide up these groups along arbitrary lines (as you probably know there are taxonomic frustrations with each new find as specific individuals have a tendency to exhibit anatomical traits associated with entirely different groups), but probably there was never really all that much separation to begin with. There are probably just 'seven degrees of separation' between the earliest sapiens in East Africa, and Neanderthals in Europe, before the sapiens even left Africa; my belief is that they were already, in an indirect manner, part of the same reproductive community, via intermediate groups. That's why occasionally they dig up a gracile Neanderthal or a Sapiens with a slight occipital bun.

Sapiens and Neanderthals co-existed for tens of thousands of years - up to 50 000 years in some places. This is like all of history since the first Sumerian cities, six or seven times over. Quite a great span of time. I don't doubt there was sometimes violence between them, perhaps it may even have been frequent, but my speculation is that Neanderthals were eventually absorbed into more succesful Sapiens groups. They failed to substantially impact on sapiens DNA because their traits were the victim of sexual selection - in other words, those Neanderthals who got incorporated into Sapiens groups had difficulty finding mates. Think of the omega wolf, in a wolf pack (a social structure not at all unlike our own).

sabio

the first settlers to Europe, may have been, but not necessarily the first British or Irish; unless thats where the first settlers arrived.

galteeman

Yes the Neanderthal and human genomes are at least 99.5% identical, but from what I’ve read they can still identify genes that are specifically Neanderthal and none of these have been found in modern humans.
I’ve also read that it may have been true that they mated but that the offspring might have been sterile, like mules.
I just remembered we already discussed this before
http://www.historum.com/showthread.p...ht=neanderthal

Tudor chick

OMG - That's like biblical, 40 days and 40 nights. Remind me again why did I want to come to Ireland
Actually we have had much the same weather here at the moment but not as many days rain, and the hills around where I live are nice and green, much the same as....Ireland
Which brings me back to topic - Why are some Irish called "black Irish" then when there is no way in hell of them being black

galteeman

That just reminded me of the Herring Gull and the Blackbacked Gull story.

Celticguy

I think black irish are a minority of irish people who auctually have dark hair eyes and complexion.