Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / June 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

News: Neanderthals wore make-up and liked to chat

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Robert Karl Stonjek - 28 Mar 2008 01:38 GMT
Neanderthals wore make-up and liked to chat
 a.. 09:24 27 March 2008
 b.. NewScientist.com news service
 c.. Dan Jones
Could Neanderthals speak? The answer may depend on whether they used make-up.

Francesco d'Errico, an archaeologist from the University of Bordeaux, France, has found crafted lumps of pigment - essentially crayons - left behind by Neanderthals across Europe.

He says that Neanderthals, who most likely had pale skin, used these dark pigments to mark their own as well as animal skins. And, since body art is a form of communication, this implies that the Neanderthals could speak, d'Errico says.

Working with Marie Soressi of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, d'Errico has recovered hundreds of blocks of black manganese pigment from two neighbouring sites at Pech de l'Azé in France, which were occupied by Neanderthals. These add to evidence of pigment among Neanderthal from some 39 other sites.

The pigments were not just smeared onto the body like camouflage, d'Errico says, but fashioned into drawing tools.

"The flat, elongated surfaces on the archaeological specimens are consistent, as confirmed experimentally, with producing clearly visible straight black lines, perhaps arranged to produce abstract designs," says d'Errico, who presented his work on 15 March at the Seventh Evolution of Language Conference in Barcelona, Spain.

Essential words
Body painting, argues d'Errico, is a "material proxy" for symbolic communication. What's more, he says, the techniques for making the symbols, and the meaning they carry, would have to be transmitted through language.

And body painting isn't the only proxy associated with Neanderthal remains. Neanderthals adorned their bodies with ornamentation, such as necklaces made from shell beads.

The sorts of beads used by modern humans, and the ornaments they fashioned from them, vary geographically. This is often interpreted as a sign of ethnic and cultural diversity among humans, and a means of symbolically binding groups and differentiating them from others. D'Errico suggests that the same holds true for Neanderthals.

Other researchers agree, and point to a double standard of some researchers in interpreting the archaeological record, including evidence of burials, care of the infirm and social cooperation.

'Inferior ability'
"Some archaeologists are happy to associate these same features with language if they occur with modern humans, but are not willing to associate them with language among the Neanderthals," says anthropologist Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St Louis, US.

"The double standard doesn't work - if they reflect language in one, they must reflect in it both."

However, even if Neanderthals had language capabilities, that does not mean they spoke in the same way as humans.

"The archaeological record does not show that they ever attained the cultural level of the humans who could talk as we do," says Phillip Lieberman, a linguist at Brown University, Rhode Island, US.

"Neanderthals possessed language, but their linguistic and cognitive ability was inferior to the humans who replaced them," he says.

Source: NewScientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13536?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn13536

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
Edward  Hennessey - 01 Apr 2008 23:35 GMT
 Neanderthals wore make-up and liked to chat
   a.. 09:24 27 March 2008
   b.. NewScientist.com news service
   c.. Dan Jones
 Could Neanderthals speak? The answer may depend on whether they used make-up.

 Francesco d'Errico, an archaeologist from the University of Bordeaux, France, has found crafted lumps of pigment - essentially crayons - left behind by Neanderthals across Europe.

 He says that Neanderthals, who most likely had pale skin, used these dark pigments to mark their own as well as animal skins. And, since body art is a form of communication, this implies that the Neanderthals could speak, d'Errico says.

 Working with Marie Soressi of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, d'Errico has recovered hundreds of blocks of black manganese pigment from two neighbouring sites at Pech de l'Azé in France, which were occupied by Neanderthals. These add to evidence of pigment among Neanderthal from some 39 other sites.

 The pigments were not just smeared onto the body like camouflage, d'Errico says, but fashioned into drawing tools.

 It is worth remarking that kohl, a cosmetic eyeliner/eyeshadow is still used in the Arab world
 by women who fancy it for the effect of making their eyes seem bigger
 and giving them a sloe appearance. Argument and various findings have kohl composed
 of powdered galena, antimony, herbal soot and other things, perhaps manganese included.
 Some hail kohl, as well, for its properties as a fly repellent and vermifuge...which would work
 well with the toxic properties of lead and antimony. Also note that kohl is a key component
 of the word alcohol, a substance itself reputed to give the eyes a dark and sunken effect
 on heavy consumption.

 Regards,

 Edward Hennessey
Rich Travsky - 13 Apr 2008 03:52 GMT
> [...]
> Francesco d'Errico, an archaeologist from the University of Bordeaux, France,
> has found crafted lumps of pigment
> [...]
> He says that Neanderthals, who most likely had pale skin, used these dark pigments
> [...]

Which ties in somewhat with news from last year

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003975496_neanderthal26.html
Friday, October 26, 2007
Red hair a part of Neanderthal genetic profile

PHILADELPHIA — In an unprecedented feat of forensic anthropology, European
researchers extracted enough DNA from two Neanderthal skulls to suggest their
owners sported red hair and white skin when they were alive 43,000 and 50,000
years ago.
...
GoldLions - 20 Apr 2008 23:23 GMT
> "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in messagenews:Q5XGj.3378$n8.12@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>  years ago.
>  ...

According to what I've read, some scholars specializing in genetics
tried inserting some parts of the Neanderthal genetic material into
modern human cells wondering whether the human cells would retain
melanin or not.

The result of their experiment was that the human cells would turn
light.

Some then assumed that Neanderthal also must had been light skinned,
but were they?

Perhaps WHY the human cells would not retain the dark pigment was that
the pigment for Neanderthal skin may not had been compatible with
ours?

Maybe the skin pigment of the Neanderthal was something completely
different? Were Neanderthals a dark gray as seen with gorillas or
orangutans since I also read that certain Neanderthal genomes showed
that at multiple locations their DNA sequences matched chimp DNA but
not human.
So with that in mind I wonder what change would happen if one were to
try the same procedure of placing gorilla, orangutan, or even chimp
pigment/DNA within human cells?

Would the human cells remain white also?

Hard to say since it was also mentioned that what caused "red" in the
Neanderthal genome is different from what causes "red hair" in BOTH
human AND ape.... So I guess we 're back to "square one"
again?........
Pretty frustrating, any reply would be most appreciated.
Many thanks.
jerry warner - 15 May 2008 09:50 GMT
> > "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in messagenews:Q5XGj.3378$n8.12@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> Pretty frustrating, any reply would be most appreciated.
> Many thanks.

well its an interesting idea but too early to know one way or
another. Patience!
GoldLions - 20 Apr 2008 23:57 GMT
> "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in messagenews:Q5XGj.3378$n8.12@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>  years ago.
>  ...==========================

Lalueza-Fox team studied a skin-pigment gene, called MC1R and found a
different variant of the same gene in their Neanderthal bone samples.
But how can one be completely certain that this new variant led to red-
haired, white-skinned Neanderthals?
Why not a completely different skin color like gray as seen on
oranutans?
Some tried inserting some parts of this Neanderthal genetic material
into modern human cells wondering whether the human cells would retain
melanin or not.

The result of their experiment was that the human cells would turn
light.

Some then assumed that Neanderthal also must had been light skinned,
but were they?

Perhaps WHY the human cells would not retain the dark pigment was that
the pigment for Neanderthal skin may not had been compatible with
ours?

Maybe the skin pigment of the Neanderthal was something completely
different? Were Neanderthals a dark gray as seen with gorillas or
orangutans since I also read that certain Neanderthal genomes showed
that at multiple locations their DNA sequences matched chimp DNA but
not human.
So with that in mind I wonder what change would happen if one were to
try the same procedure of placing gorilla, orangutan, or even chimp
pigment/DNA within human cells?

Would the human cells remain white also?

Hard to say since it was also mentioned that what caused "red" in the
Neanderthal genome is different from what causes "red hair" in BOTH
human AND ape.... So I guess we 're back to "square one"
again?........
Pretty frustrating, any reply would be most appreciated.
Many thanks.
Dwight E. Howell - 31 May 2008 05:10 GMT
>> "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in messagenews:Q5XGj.3378$n8.12@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> Pretty frustrating, any reply would be most appreciated.
> Many thanks.

Their understanding of genetics human and otherwise is a heck of lot
better than yours. By the way the actual genetic differences between
humans and chimps is pretty slim.

The pigment DNA is pretty much the same and might be the exact same
other than in fair individuals.

The real question is what would happen for example if you tried to do an
entire chromosome substitution. Just how much mucking around could you
get away with before you did something lethal.

You could most likely get away with using chimp mitochondra and a Y
chromosome but beyond that....

Of course doing this to human would be out of the question but if you
went the other way especially while nobody was looking...
GoldLions - 01 Jun 2008 14:21 GMT
in an email.

If this isn't contamination something crossed the line going one way
or the other and this is early days.
=================
Interesting, but I'm wondering if the Neanderthal DNA results were
STILL "contaminated" since the bones were handled by various
scientists who studied them years ago.
Should another Neanderthal skeleton be found, I hope at least ONE LONG
BONE won't be handled by human hands but by machine and shipped right
away to a sterile lab. Then will the genetic results be the same?
My point is, just HOW different were they and what was it that made a
Neanderthal uniquely "Neanderthal"...
TY for your replies BTW.
jerry warner - 06 Apr 2008 08:29 GMT
> Neanderthals wore make-up and liked to chat
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> "Neanderthals possessed language, but their linguistic and cognitive
> ability was inferior to the humans who replaced them," he says.

So were they Repblican or Democrat, by the same token?

Jerry
spiznet - 06 Apr 2008 17:54 GMT
> > Neanderthals wore make-up and liked to chat
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> > "Neanderthals possessed language, but their linguistic and cognitive
> > ability was inferior to the humans who replaced them," he says.

Prove it.
Marc Verhaegen - 06 Apr 2008 22:30 GMT
Op 06-04-2008 18:54, in artikel
c72a7451-a6d2-4f06-8bbc-eafcddaa594a@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, spiznet
<mark@spiznet.com> schreef:

>>> Neanderthals wore make-up and liked to chat
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>> "Neanderthals possessed language, but their linguistic and cognitive
>>> ability was inferior to the humans who replaced them," he says.

> Prove it.

To whom are you talking, my little boy? to Lieberman?
Lee Olsen - 07 Apr 2008 00:06 GMT
>  my little boy?

Pervert.
Marc Verhaegen - 07 Apr 2008 00:48 GMT
Op 07-04-2008 01:06, in artikel
139f132b-b0f1-4501-9bb1-2bbed36a3914@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:

>>  my little boy?
>
> Pervert.

Just stop behaving like a little child, ridiculous boy.
Lee Olsen - 07 Apr 2008 02:40 GMT
> Op 07-04-2008 01:06, in artikel
> 139f132b-b0f1-4501-9bb1-2bbed36a3...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Just stop behaving like a little child, ridiculous boy.

Pervert, just can't get children out of your mind, can you?
Marc Verhaegen - 07 Apr 2008 19:58 GMT
Op 07-04-2008 03:40, in artikel
8f652094-c5b7-4c9e-8466-fca3ab0fb336@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:

>> Op 07-04-2008 01:06, in artikel
>> 139f132b-b0f1-4501-9bb1-2bbed36a3...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
>>> Pervert.

> Pervert, just can't get children out of your mind, can you?

Stop behaving like a little child, ridiculous boy.
Lee Olsen - 07 Apr 2008 21:22 GMT
> Stop behaving like a little child, ridiculous boy.

says the name-calling a.shole.
GoldLions - 20 Apr 2008 23:35 GMT
On Mar 27, 8:38�pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
> Neanderthals wore make-up and liked to chat
> � a.. 09:24 27 March 2008
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> Posted by
> Robert Karl Stonjek

What a neat topic, "evidence" of Neanderthal make up?
My one question to this author is how are they so certain that these
"crayons" were the result of Neanderthals and not from their
successor, Homo Sapiens? (H.S)
Even if these "crayons" were found at certain Neanderthal sites could
it had been possible that Neanderthals may had traded for them or more
likely "stolen" from abandoned H.S. camps? Just a thought.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.