Read your reply about the morphology/DNA stuff and a question popped into my noggin.
Looking at the wide range of human variations in localized morphology and DNA today, might it be that neanderthal and cro-magnon were the same just separated by distance long enough to develop differently?
Today, differences in skull shape can be used to identify which race a skeleton belongs to. We’re breaking down human migration histories by DNA changes and flows.
Might it be that the Cro and Neander pops spent enough time apart that they developed a greater degree of differences before coming back together?
Today, differences in skull shape can be used to identify which race a skeleton belongs to.
Haven't you heard? That's just racist. The last prominent anthropologist who exhaustively catalogued by racial type was the ironically named Carleton Coon. It is of course still done and still used, it just isn't emphasized in order to avoid the public pillory.
We’re breaking down human migration histories by DNA changes and flows.
It'll be nice when (if?) the so-called anatomically modern specimens from Africa get their DNA sequenced. People will be in for a surprise I think. Of course, and just to save someone some time, a lack of genetic continuity will then be ascribed the allegedly greater genetic diversity in Africa, and blah blah blah circlular arguments etc etc.
When a population has limited food supplies, it tends to have A) smaller family size and B) less monogamy/male-centric polygamy. Agriculture created a more geographically stable population, greater family sizes, and those are the chromosomes that are disproportionately found in human societies today.
Eventually this realization may dawn, and then other mysteries may arise -- such as, oh, why has there been a series of agricultural revolutions followed by a reversion to hunter-gatherer lifestyles and plunges of population? That'll be fun to watch.