Решила прочитать данный топик. На 6-ой странице есть упоминание, что человек произошел от неандертальца. Хочу напомнить, есть новые данные, что это не так.
For example, it was originally believed that anatomically modern Homo sapiens (Cro-Magnon man) appeared only 35,000 years ago and had thus descended from Neandertal who had died out at the same time. At that time, one of the most dramatic events in human history appears to have occurred. Cro-Magnon man suddenly arrived in Europe, building shelters, organising himself in clans, wearing skins for clothing, and designing special tools and weapons using wood and bones. It is to this phase of Homo sapiens that we attribute the magnificent cave art such as that at Lascaux, France, dated to 27,000 years ago.
But it is now accepted that, despite the behavioural differences, the European Cro-Magnons were no different anatomically from the Homo sapiens found in the Middle East 100,000 years ago. Both would be virtually indistinguishable from the population today if dressed in modern clothes. It is also clear that Homo sapiens did not descend from Neandertal as was previously thought. Several recent discoveries in Israel have confirmed beyond any doubt that Homo sapiens co-existed with Neandertal between 100-90,000 years ago.
What then is our relationship to Neandertal? We are used to seeing artists' impressions based on his known characteristics of clumsy limbs and crude features, but everything else, such as the liberal body hair, is pure supposition, designed to give us the impression of an evolutionary continuum. Recent discoveries have led to a major reappraisal of Neandertal. In particular, a 60,000-year-old Neandertal's remains were found at Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel in Israel, with an intact hyoid bone, virtually identical to our present-day hyoid. Since this bone makes human speech possible, the scientists were forced to conclude that Neandertal had the capability to speak. And many scientists regard speech as the key to mankind's great leap forward.
Most anthropologists now recognise Neandertal as a fully fledged Homo sapiens, who for a long time was behaviourally equivalent with other Homo sapiens. It is quite possible that Neandertal was as intelligent and human-like as we are today. It has been suggested that his large and crude skull features may have simply been a genetic disorder similar to that of acromegaly.
Кроманьонец тоже рассматривается как сородич человека.
И даже Homo erectus:
How did the hominid known as Homo erectus transform itself 200,000 years ago into Homo sapiens, with a 50 per cent increase in brain size, together with language capability and a modern anatomy?
According to the orthodox scenario, Homo sapiens emerged suddenly c. 200,000 years ago, and yet made little use of his huge brain for 160,000 years. Then, 40,000 years ago, Homo sapiens seemingly underwent what we might call a transition to modern behaviour. Having swept northwards, he expanded through most of the globe by 13,000 years ago. After a further 1,000 years he discovered agriculture, 6,000 years later he formed great civilisations with advanced astronomical knowledge, and here we are after another 6,000 years sending space probes into the furthermost depths of the Solar System.
Взято из The Mystery of Homo Sapiens
By Alan F. Alford
Вообще меня данный предмет интересует поскольку-постольку, а вот больше methods of Archaeological Dating.
До сих пор нет ни одного точного метода исследования.
измерение радиоакт. изотопа Carbon-14 прдполагают, что его количество сейчас и древности было одинаково.
А как же выводы о повышенной радиации?
Uranium-238:
2 вида ошибок в зависимости от течения реакции.
Carbon-14 dating
Dating methods can be relative or absolute. An absolute dating method tells the excavator the specific date of the material being studied (plus or minus a margin of error). Imagine an archaeologist needs to assign a date to a bone recovered during an excavation. Turning to carbon-14 dating, the archaeologist might discover that the bone dates from 3,500 years ago. Adding the margin of error for carbon-14 (in this case, +/- 150 years), the archaeologist can give a reliable date range for the bone: 1655-1405 B.C.
Some have argued that artifacts can move down through sandy sediments, and therefore the age of the sediment may be older than that of the artifacts. Another problem is that burrowing rodents can move sediment and artifacts through a vertical dimension, and then the effects of time can obscure the evidence of the burrows. Certainly though, evidence of burrows in the youngest part of a site are a clue that past burrowing might have created disturbances in the archaeological and sedimentary record.
