Cro-Magnon

[TheSearcher]

Considering, once again, that Cro-magnon ARE US, who says we started the spread of any form of language, let alone a modernized one at any point within the last 35,000 years? Neanderthals had a modern hyoid bone (as well), necessary for speech, from c.60,000 BP.

A Middle Palaeolithic human hyoid bone

and in addition this:

Human hyoid bones from the middle Pleistocene site of the Sima de los Huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain)

As to a hyoid bone, and possible speech, in Homo erectus:

A Homo erectus hyoid bone: possible implications for the origin of the human capability for speech.

cormac

On the other hand, both brain-size and the presence of the Broca's area, within the Homo Erectus, seem to suggest the opposite. Or the least to suggest a rudimentary speech and articulate language.

[SlimJim22]

The Cro-Magnons are identified with Homo sapiens sapiens of modern form, in the time range ca. 35,000–10,000 b.p., roughly corresponding with the period of the Upper Paleolithic in archaeology. The term “Cro-Magnon” has no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture. The name is not commonly encountered in modern professional literature in English, since authors prefer to talk more generally of anatomically modern humans. They thus avoid a certain ambiguity in the label “Cro-Magnon,” which is sometimes used to refer to all early moderns in Europe (as opposed to the preceding Neanderthals), and sometimes to refer to a specific human group that can be distinguished from other Upper Paleolithic humans in the region. Nevertheless, the term “Cro-Magnon” is still very commonly used in popular texts, because it makes an obvious distinction with the Neanderthals, and also refers directly to people, rather than to the complicated succession of archaeological phases that make up the Upper Paleolithic. This evident practical value has prevented archaeologists and human paleontologists—especially in continental Europe—from dispensing entirely with the idea of Cro-Magnons.

The Cro-Magnons take their name from a rock shelter in the Vezere Valley in the Dordogne, within the famous village of Les Eyzies de Tayac. When the railway was being constructed in 1868, parts of five skeletons were found sealed in Pleistocene deposits, along with hearths and Aurignacian artifacts. Subsequently similar finds were made at sites such as Combe Capelle and Laugerie-Basse in the Dordogne, and Mentone and Grimaldi in Italy. Other specimens found earlier, such as Paviland in Britain and Engis in Belgium could be set in the same group, and it became plain that their physical makeup contrasted sharply with that of Neanderthals discovered in other sites. Sufficient data to build up this classic picture accumulated over a period, but it was brought into sharp focus following the find of a classic Neanderthal at La Chapelle in 1908. The early interpretations owe much to the French scholars Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois. Later research has extended the geographical distribution of similar humans and has provided an absolute dating scale for them; however, later research has also raised many questions about the origins of the Cro-Magnons and their status as a coherent group.

Physical Characteristics and Adaptation

Cro-Magnons were closely similar to modern humans, but more robust in some features, especially of the cranium. They meet criteria listed by Michael Day and Chris Stringer for modern humans, such as a short, high cranium and a discontinuous supra-orbital torus (brow ridge). Many individuals were well above present-day average in stature, often reaching around 75 inches (190 cm). Their limbs were long, especially in the forearms and lower legs, body proportions suggesting to some anthropologists that their origins lie in warm climes, rather than Ice Age Europe.

Read more: Cro-magnons - Physical Characteristics and Adaptation, Chronology, Geographical Distribution, Cultural Associations, Relationship with the Neanderthals and Other Hominids - 000, Modern, Human, Europe, Humans, and Paleolithic http://www.jrank.org/history/pages/6013/Cro-magnons.html#ixzz0wTsyDCTZ'>http://www.jrank.org/history/pages/6013/Cro-magnons.html#ixzz0wTsyDCTZ

http://www.jrank.org/history/pages/6013/Cro-magnons.html

http://www.donsmaps.com/cromagnon.html

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

http://www.atlantisquest.com/America.html

http://wysinger.homestead.com/grimaldi.html

Just some links that I found interesting. From my reckoning there were modern humans of slightly different proportions between 40,000 and 10,000bce. It is safe to assume that they had the power of speech. What intrigues me is what led them to be bigger in proportion? Was it a case of ice age animals were bigger so man grew bigger to hunt them. Then when the ice afge ended and animals began to shrink then so did we.

I know that modern humans have been around for 200,000 years and did not evolve as big as cro magnon and grimaldi in Africa so why is it that in the south of Europe, caucasoid and negroid characteristics can be found amongst these 'giants'.

Furthermore, to what extent were they wiped out or did they infact breed with the rest of the modern human population, of which they were apart? If so are there any genetic markers to indicate a genuine connection to the Finns, Basques or Berbers? Sorry if I am way off the mark as I know I have been through this with some of you before. Please clarify.

[cormac mac airt]

On the other hand, both brain-size and the presence of the Broca's area, within the Homo Erectus, seem to suggest the opposite. Or the least to suggest a rudimentary speech and articulate language.

Hello TheSearcher,

Herein lies the problem, IMO. Both the brain AND the throat need to be of sufficient developement to even remotely approach modern, or near so, human speech and language. In Homo erectus, the brain was developing but the hyoid bone and surrounding structures were still in their infancy, so to speak. I'm not sure one could call the sounds they made a language, but surely it was an early form of communication.

cormac

[Harte]

Harte, always gotta debate about stuff.. and no here is a link that states there 35,000 years old!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

MY GOD MAN!!! your soo stubborn!

Stubborn?

Any you, man, apparently don't bother to read posts that contradict what you say.

So, can you please quote from any post I made that argues about the time period in which Cro-Magnon (a term not even really used anymore) existed?

Speech and language did not originate with Cro-Magnon man. It's just as simple as that.

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

I know that modern humans have been around for 200,000 years and did not evolve as big as cro magnon and grimaldi in Africa so why is it that in the south of Europe, caucasoid and negroid characteristics can be found amongst these 'giants'.

Besides the fact that we've been over this before, that is that your Grimaldi man IS Cro-Magnon and therefore irrelevant as a different form of human, Cro-Magnon is Homo sapiens sapiens. So what else would you expect from a member of HSS, but that they have characteristics of modern humans (HSS)?

Furthermore, to what extent were they wiped out or did they infact breed with the rest of the modern human population, of which they were apart?

Being us, they weren't wiped out. Following your train of thought, I suppose we ought to consider the Tutsi/Watusi as somehow less than HSS as well, considering they are bigger (in height) than the average person.

If so are there any genetic markers to indicate a genuine connection to the Finns, Basques or Berbers?

Cro-Magnon's are HSS. Finns, Basques and Berbers are HSS. You are trying to create a difference where none exists.

cormac

[SlimJim22]

Besides the fact that we've been over this before, that is that your Grimaldi man IS Cro-Magnon and therefore irrelevant as a different form of human, Cro-Magnon is Homo sapiens sapiens. So what else would you expect from a member of HSS, but that they have characteristics of modern humans (HSS)?

Being us, they weren't wiped out. Following your train of thought, I suppose we ought to consider the Tutsi/Watusi as somehow less than HSS as well, considering they are bigger (in height) than the average person.

Cro-Magnon's are HSS. Finns, Basques and Berbers are HSS. You are trying to create a difference where none exists.

cormac

Ok, so HSS could grow to basketball player heights in pre history and through to the present and it is solely this difference in genetics that accounts for Cro Magnon, Grimaldi and the Watusi.

There is NO difference between them and us because they are us. It's worth explaining because in the long run I'm sure this will crop up time and again. To what extent have we been mislead about Cro Magnons in the past?

This site has made it much clearer but thanks for your comments Cormac as they make me look for better answers to my own innane questions.

http://www.ukmtpress.com/universityofkmtpress/id497.html

[cormac mac airt]

Ok, so HSS could grow to basketball player heights in pre history and through to the present and it is solely this difference in genetics that accounts for Cro Magnon, Grimaldi and the Watusi.

There is NO difference between them and us because they are us. It's worth explaining because in the long run I'm sure this will crop up time and again. To what extent have we been mislead about Cro Magnons in the past?

This site has made it much clearer but thanks for your comments Cormac as they make me look for better answers to my own innane questions.

http://www.ukmtpress.com/universityofkmtpress/id497.html

Read anything from the likes of Madame Blavatsky or R. Cedric Leonard, who use the term "Cro-Magnon" in an attempt to separate them from us and somehow make them an advanced civilization or even descendants of Atlantis. That's the only reason they use the term, to give them an air of relevancy that is totally unevidenced in the sciences. To include anthrogenealogy.

cormac

[TheSearcher]

Hello TheSearcher,

Herein lies the problem, IMO. Both the brain AND the throat need to be of sufficient developement to even remotely approach modern, or near so, human speech and language. In Homo erectus, the brain was developing but the hyoid bone and surrounding structures were still in their infancy, so to speak. I'm not sure one could call the sounds they made a language, but surely it was an early form of communication.

cormac

Yes, I see what you mean. This said, I still think that a rudimentary language / communication was present. I just have a problem with the fact, that a being with evidence of complex problem solving abilities, had no way of actually communicating those complex ideas. If you are developed enough to make fire, and use it, then there must be more.

It might not have been something we would recognise, but there must have been some kind of language to communicate different ideas. Aaaaarrggh it' one of those what came first things.....that I hate so much

Edited August 14, 2010 by TheSearcher

[Harte]

Yes, I see what you mean. This said, I still think that a rudimentary language / communication was present. I just have a problem with the fact, that a being with evidence of complex problem solving abilities, had no way of actually communicating those complex ideas. If you are developed enough to make fire, and use it, then there must be more.

It might not have been something we would recognise, but there must have been some kind of language to communicate different ideas. Aaaaarrggh it' one of those what came first things.....that I hate so much

Don't worry, Searcher.

I'm a Homo Erectus promoter myself. For a lot of reasons, but I'd do it anyway even if it was only for their hilarious name!

We don't know everything you know. A month ago people thought A. Afarensis couldn't use tools.

There's still hope for a Homo Erectus Debate Society/Drama Club.

"To flee, or not to flee, that is the instinctual question."

Shake-spear

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the connective tissue which prevents the mastication of the daily kill and to assume the separate and equal station to which the use of fire and knapped stone entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the method by which the blaze is engendered."

Tumas Hammerstone

Harte

Edited August 14, 2010 by Harte

[wiredbadger]

Yes, I see what you mean. This said, I still think that a rudimentary language / communication was present. I just have a problem with the fact, that a being with evidence of complex problem solving abilities, had no way of actually communicating those complex ideas. If you are developed enough to make fire, and use it, then there must be more.

It might not have been something we would recognise, but there must have been some kind of language to communicate different ideas. Aaaaarrggh it' one of those what came first things.....that I hate so much

Actually good man , dont confuse problem solving with complex language. hermit crabs with the shell solution. birds with the ambush from the tree solution. sharks with the electrical sense solution, including the lateral line which is shared by all fish. these are problem solving genius of life as a whole.says nothing of the intelligence or the complexity of their communication.

in anthropology , we learn about how lucy types would walk along a river bed 8 miles from where leakey found his hominid skeletons. how they would pick up on rock out of many, somehow knowing that it was the right rock.somehow knowing how it would cleave. carry it while they commit their foraging strategy, possibly along the treelines. knowing that the jaguar may have had a kill.upon finding it, they would fashion the stone implement at the spot.creating it, according to the means they saw fit.all the while knowing that the predator would gnaw at the large bone ends and therefore make it easier for them to hew off limbs. they then, would all congregate at this central spot. much like baboons do nowadays. all of this is awesome indeed, but guess what, they are not directly related to homo sapiens. there is in fact no single cladistic trait that can be identified in humans to be found in them. they have curved fingers, saggital crest, ape like hip sockets (meaning that bipedal was not their preferred choice) the mandible wasnt connect like ours and other things, that are explicitly sapiens was not present in them. yet they had this incredible knowledge. our species, is unique only in the ways that we are.meaning, we are bipedal by preference and habit. we have a physiological difference that is explicitly separate from other primates. yet, as i pointed out, Australopithecus had some amazing intelligence, or at least some form of amazing communication. as it stands , we human never did actually become as good as they were when it came to intuitively knowing the stones.(so i have heard) and it is hard for us to recreate the stone tools the way these hominid did.