DonMatesz wrote:
I wrote:
>>But Neanderthals had a limited intellectual performance, e.g.
>>the slow developement of tools and absence of art
>>(These observations taken from Jared Diamond
>>>"The third Chimpanzee")
>>
>>Cro Magnons made the big leaps forward with a fast developement of
>>tools and developement of art (cave art, fishhooks, nets
>>advanced clothing and stone tools, to list some).
>
>You really should read Nutrition and Evolution
>by Michael Crawford and David Marsh.
>Crawford and Marsh note: "the Neanderthal skull was shaped
>differently from ours,
>sweeping back form heavy eyebrow ridges where ours rises in the
>near-vertical line of the
>forehead. This meant that it could not have accomodated the large
>frontal lobes that form
>a major part of our cerebral cortex. It also meant that the
>Neanderthal man's skull was
>in that way similar to the skulls of the big cats...
>This streamlined shape is a common
>feature of all the top land carnivores.
Thanks for the book recommendation. I didn't want to merely cite
Jared Diamonds book here. It's just a reference to the observation,
that Neanderthals had limited capabilities over 10thousands of years
although - as long time ice age hunters - they should have had the
very best access to the one (and only?) stuff that is used
to build up brains (DHA and other w-3 fats).
*if* the input from nutrition is, what determines brain size
(as opposed to beeing synthesised by body enzymes)
then neanderthals would have had the very best chances.
After that wild game is rather low in fat (mammouth too?)
it is rather probable that they *did* eat the fatty brain of the
prey.
And one brain should countain *all* what's necessary to build up
one brain, isn't it so?.
>It is well suited to accomodate the parts of the
>brain used to control motor function, which are in the middle,
> and the regions dealing
>with sight, smell and hearing which are behind and
>below....Neanderthal man might well
>have had those regions developed to a high degree of effciency
>and it is significant that,
>judging from the fossil remains, he appears to have been
>carnivorous.
Yes, to a bigger extent and for longer times as Cro Magnon people.
But - like cats - not the *most* intelligent ones.
>Indeed, it has been suggested that a distinguishing
>feature between Neanderthal man and Homo Sapiens is
>that the Neanderthals did not eat fish...."
>Crawford and Marsh argue that the development of the forebrain
>is dependent upon access to
>a large amount of omega-3 EFAs in the form of DHA in particular.
>Since Neanderthal man
>had a skull shaped like a big cat we know he had a small forebrain.
>It is not just total
>brain size, but forebrain size that is important.
What you say, would imply that DHA was especially important
for forebrain developenent. But i don't assume that the forehead
contains more DHA than the rest, do you?
Access to coastal fish and mussels may indeed be an important
difference I have heard about iodide (not DHA) lack
as a main problem for good ol' neanderthals.
Later,in europe two big different cultures emerged (with agrigulture)
megalith and linearband -- the latter without access to coast
products.
But no difference in brain size or shape is reported.
>
>"Across the world man's close link with water and its foods is
>so obvious that its
>significance has been missed. The idea of a savannah origin is
>quite inconsistent with
>human physiology...." the details I don't have time to post
>right now, but there are at
>least 8 reasons to reject the idea of a savannah origin,
>among them the lack of sufficient
>DHA in the tissues of land animals.
I wouldn't want to reject that aquatic theory although it doesn't
seem to be much discussed among scientists.
Coastal fish aren't the ones wtich are particularly rich in DHA
-- and deep water fish we can't consider.
But mussles have the advantage of easy access and higher DHA levels.
Please mention what rejects savannah origin in your opinion
(the 8 points).
Regards
Amadeus
--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net
|
