Of the several books that I have read recently on paleoanthropology and human evolution, I find this one the most helpful. This is partially because the authors are anatomists, systematists and pragmatists, largely untouched by 'political-correctness' and partially because I agree with them.
Human evolution has been characterized by the development of multiple hominid species over the past several million years. These species can be loosely grouped into gracile and robust australopithecines; Homo habilis; H. erectus; H. ergaster; H. heidelbergensis; H. neanderthalensis; H. sapiens and probably a number of others. The authors are open-minded about the Iberian 'Los Huesos' site, but believe these numerous fossils may represent even another separate human species.
Part of the problem with a systematic segregation of the various human species has to do with morphologic differences based on sex, age, individual variation and subspecies [racial] variation. The same species also tend to vary with time, which is a form of subspecific variation. The problem is multiplied by the fact that, with the exception of H. neanderthalensis in which DNA has been recovered, species separation is based almost entirely on bony features i.e. soft tissues are long gone. It's a little like separating lions and tigers based strictly on bony features. It would be tough.
The authors are tentative about the exact sequence of species that led to H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis but are convinced that these groups are separate species and cousins rather than descendants one from the other. They believe that early hominid species may have faced sequential extinctions via the usual natural processes but that the extinctions of later human species may have been, directly or indirectly, the consequence of the later and culturally evolved 'varieties' of H. sapiens, which interestingly and quite probably significantly, arose in Europe.
H. sapiens and H. neanderthals overlapped timewise and geographically in Europe and Western Asia. It also seems true that H. sapiens overlapped in a similar way with H. erectus in southeast Asia. In both cases the outcome was the same with only H. sapiens remaining.
I was fascinated by the authors' descriptions of possible early H. sapiens and H. neanderthal interactions in Israel. They seemed to overlap for tens of thousands of years, a time when both groups used similar stone technologies. When sapiens developed more sophisticated technologies, Neanderthals mysteriously disappeared. Something similar may have happened in Europe. At virtually the same time that sapiens was producing magnificent art, Neanderthals disappeared from the surface of the Earth. This doesn't mean that Sapiens and Neanderthals lived in peaceful coexistence at any time but it is entirely conceivable that there was an ancient 'balance of power' as long as both groups had similar technologies. Once Sapiens graduated to superior technologies and techniques, Neanderthals seem to have--perhaps very gradually--disappeared.
The authors postulate that something happened rather suddenly to sapiens' populations that caused them to produce superior weapons and art. They don't know what this may have been but it may have been complex language, something the Neanderthals may have lacked.
Because of the date of this book, the authors don't include recent information about the fascinating H. florensis find although I would be interested in their take. For the same reason they don't include the very recent information about the supposed presence of Neanderthal genetic material in our, Sapiens, genome. I would comment, though, that because of recent common ancestor, we will share more--probably far more--than 99% of our DNA with Neanderthal. Interpretation of data of interbreeding following the full development of Sapiens and Neanderthals must be cautious. It also must be confirmed by multiple laboratories. It is not impossible, at least, even if the two species were terrified of one another. It is not inconceivable that, either by predation or combat, a Neanderthal infant may have been 'captured' by Sapiens hunters and given to a woman who had recently lost a child. If such a Neanderthal were raised up in such a tribe, it might very well have been accepted and interbreeding would then be a real possibility.
One thing I want to mention, in hopes that the authors will read this. Much has been made about early--and later--hominid meat scavenging. It may very well have occurred but there is an important proviso. I'll give a personal experience. I was raising quail and pheasants and began to have an unusual die off. I autopsied a bird and found the crop full of maggots. I knew instantly what happened--the birds had died of botulism. Birds and many mammals have Clostrium botulinum [bacteria] in their guts. Under anaerobic conditions, such as following death, these bacteria produce a potent toxin. A bird or two had died of other causes and I hadn't noticed them. Clostridia in their guts produced deadly poison. Flies laid eggs on the dead birds and the developing fly larvae [maggots] became contaminated with the same botulism poison. Healthy birds came by, pecked at the maggots and poisoned themselves--much like taking poison pills. More birds died and the process continued....
Human beings [H. sapiens] are exquisitely sensitive to botulism poisoning. Most scavengers, rather understandably, aren't. A turkey vulture, for example, was 10,000 times the tolerance for botulism toxin as does a human. It is even conceivable that the foul odor we detect on rotting meat is nature's way of telling us to 'stay away.' Natural selection.
Most of the carnivora are very much meat scavengers. A wolf, African lion or leopard will eat things that smell so bad as to turn your stomach. Predictably they will have a high tolerance for botulism toxin. So what are the possibilities:
1. some species of early hominids were highly botulism tolerant [unlikely in my opinion].
2. hominids, both early and late, would scavenge only from fresh carcasses [this, no doubt, did occur but is attended by the considerable danger from the carnivores that had brought the dead animal down].
3. hominids, both early and late, didn't depend much on scavenging. They killed most of their own meat.
Comments?
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Customers who bought this item also bought
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Choose from 4+ star livestreaming experiences
Amazon Explore Browse now
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
