Skip to comments.Neanderthals and Early Humans May Not Have Mingled Much
Posted on 05/10/2011 5:06:10 AM PDT by Pharmboy
An improvement in the dating of fossils suggests that the Neanderthals, a heavily muscled, thick-boned human species adapted to living in ice age Europe, perished almost immediately on contact with the modern humans who started to enter Europe from the Near East about 44,000 years ago. Until now bones from several Neanderthal sites have been dated to as young as 29,000 years ago, suggesting there was extensive overlap between the two human species. This raised the question of whether there had been interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals, an issue that is still not resolved. RSS Feed RSS Get Science News From The New York Times »
But researchers report that tests using an improved method of radiocarbon dating, based on a new way to exclude contaminants, show that most, and maybe all, Neanderthal bones in Europe are or will be found to be at least 39,000 years old. Thomas F. G. Higham, a specialist in radiocarbon dating at Oxford University, and Ron Pinhasi, an archaeologist at University College Cork in Ireland, have dated the bones of a Neanderthal child less than 2 years old whose remains were found in the Mezmaiskaya Cave in the northern Caucasus Mountains. A second Neanderthal baby, found in a lower layer in the cave, was previously dated back 29,000 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You'll take over the cave without firing a shot.
Neanderthals appear to have lived in smaller groups than our own folks ~ which suggests they had a serious problem with infectious disease.
Sodbusters vs. Free-rangers?
Ants vs. grasshoppers?
This business of being farmers is quite new.
Yeah, look at the history of violent contact between tribes of modern humans - and now contemplate the level of violence when there actually is a significant genetic difference between the groups.
The anthropologists twist themselves into knots to try and explain everything in the most non-violent manner possible.
And the primatologists were like that also until women like Jane Goodall lived amongst apes and reported back that they were quite violent.
Native Americans were hardly the peace-loving enviro utopians as some try to portray them. They were extremly violent towards each other as well. No particular knock on them, that’s just human nature deep in the genes - a fear of someone who isn’t part of your tribe, bred that way for good reason - because in the past, someone who wasn’t part of your tribe often represented a mortal threat.
The disease factor is the item I favor with my non expert opinion. So many animals of the Pleistocene disappeared, that that to me, I have to speculate that the Neanderthals succumb to the catastrophe as well. Something in the genetic makeup made them more vulnerable than the Cro Magnums that replaced them...
It wasn't fear, it was practicality. When your tribe expands beyond the supporting capacity of your territory, the only way to avoid starvation is to invade your neighbor's territory.
As far as how Cro-mags killed off Neanderthals, a moderate advantage in speed or throwing ability translates into a BIG military advantage. If you can creep up to your enemies, throw spears at them from longer range than they can throw back, and then run away faster than they can follow, it would not take long to wipe them out.
And you either take that territory or solve your overpopulation problem trying.
That THEY were shocked is saying something ... coming from Europeans THEMSELVES survivors of decades of internecine, abjectly bloodthirsty religious wars and wars of succession.
That makes sense. It was certainly important in the killing of many American Indians. It seems likely that infectious diseases to which they had no resistance swept through North America after the arrival of Columbus, destroying entire tribes and leaving survivors lost and vulnerable.
Neantherdals are going to be needing some reparations, and interest owed over 39,000 years.
I am going to be needing my customary 30 percent cut.
Bloodthirsty religious war is a leftist fantasy. The evolutionary purpose of religion is it helps a tribe win at warfare, especially if it is a superior religion. Envy is the root cause of tribal warfare. Leftists are driven by envy so they can’t handle envy being the problem so they blame the solution.
Does that mean that in wars, the side that wins has the superior religion? How does that work when the warring factors are of the same religion?
If both tribes have the same quality of religion then it is not a factor in who wins. This situation is very rare though.
Why does having a superior religion provide an edge over atheists? As I asked, what about wars between people of the same religion?
What kind of religious evidence would neanderthals provide?
Revolutionary war, most civil wars, war of roses...just a few where both sides were the same religion, weren’t they?
No bars back then.
Frank and Jim found a dog turd and convinced the New York Times that neanderthals had Greyhound race tracks.
“The neanderthals kept betting on weiner dogs and got wiped out.”
I’m convinced that Neanderthals survived to modern times in the Middle East, possibly as a hybrid with apes.
The old saying "There are no atheists in foxholes" sums it up. Atheists are more likely to crack under pressure while religious people have an extra optimism, confidence, bravery, focus, solidarity, and are more willing to die to save their tribe. Religion also acts as a conduit for passing on culture and knowledge.
Religious artifacts and burying their dead a certain way such as pointing East or West with items for an afterlife are evidence of religion. The Cro-Magnons did this. There is little evidence the Neanderthals did.
Just about every non-cosmetic human trait can be traced to an advantage in tribal warfare. Walking on two legs isn't an advantage. Being able to carry weapons and having lubricated armpits that respond to stress is. From a human evolutionary perspective, religion is simply another trait selected for on the battlefield.
How do you know athists are more likely to crack under pressure?
So does all this mean that the winner always has a superior religion?
Yes but civil wars are not as common and are a relatively new invention. In that case religion is not a significant factor in deciding the outcome.
Despite claims of the envious left, religion is not usually the root cause of murder, looting, destruction, and war. Envy is. Religion helps win at war. Muslims envy and therefore hate the West. Their envy is not because of their religion. All sound religions insist that envy is an unacceptable practice, and for good reasons.
No the winner doesn't always have the superior religion. It is only one of many factors. Most people that crack and commit suicide are not religious.
The main reason NASA selected only Christians to walk on the moon is they did not want someone that might crack under pressure and lose it on the radio, which would probably have ended NASA funding. The atheist Soviets had this disadvantage and never walked on the moon.
We’ve been having civil wars since there were rulers.
What was the root cause of all that happened during the Great Schism, the 30yrs war, the French wars of religion or the Protestant Reformation?
All is vanity. Vanity leads to envy which leads to theft, destruction, murder, war, and voting Democrat. Envy is the driver of human evolution. Without it we would still be happily eating grubs from a stick.
One trick could have been use of vocalizations that controlled the game animals. Let's say that when they got hungry they popped in one of those nose whistles of theirs, blew it, and animals fell stunned at their feet.
And vanity is a result of someone thinking their religion is superior to someone elses’.
Sometimes. But some religions ARE superior to others. This is determined in the crucible of war. If Pakistan nukes NYC in envy, their religion will have failed them, and they will be sent the ash heap of history.
If the superiority of a religion is determined in the crucible of war, how is it determined and by whom? Is it automatically the winner, the least casualties, best logistics? Does that follow through to smaller battalion or company size crucibles?
Who gets to determine whether a religion failed as a result of envy or some other reason...the winner?
Years ago, I read about some neanderthal burials that contained red ochre, which had been deliberately added, and a large amount of pollen from flowers, plus some "grave goods." This suggested that some sort of ritual was involved; otherwise, why not just roll the body into a ditch?
Apparently, neanderthals weren't very artistic. They haven't found much in the way of paintings or sculptures that could be interpreted as spiritual - unlike Cro-magnon, but that doesn't mean neanderthals weren't religious.
Here's some additional info: Link
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
Bronze Age Forum
Excerpt, or Link only?
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·
Religion just provides an advantage, does not guarantee anything. The God advantage works at all levels, nation, business, sports team, family, individual. If you have an alternate explanation why the first tribe to discover religion went on to take over the whole world I’d love to hear it. Those that conclude that religion is bad are cursed with several disadvantages in life.
Neanderthals were early humans.
The Future of the Past:
Archaeology in the 21st Century
by Eberhard Zangger
[W]hen the headteacher Johann Karl Fuhlrott discovered the bones of a Neanderthal in a cave near Dusseldorf in 1856... Rudolf Virchow, President of the Deutsche Gessellschaft fur Anthropologie... who personally promoted the principle 'always practise honesty and stand by the facts whatever happens' -- endorsed the interpretation that the Neanderthal was a bow-legged, Mongolian Cossack with rickets, who had been lucky enough to survive multiple head injuries, but who, during a campaign by Russian forces against France in 1814, had been wounded, and (stark naked) had crawled into a cave, where he had died. Thirty years passed before the specialists recognised their mistake. [pp 288-289]
I wasn’t aware that the first tribe to discover religion went on to take over the whole world. Where can I find proof of this? Thanks in advance.
If Neanderthal Women looked like Helen Thomas this would explain it....
Page 60 on covers it. Particularly read the second paragraph on page 62:
How do you know Mr. Rossano is correct?
I don’t know with certainty that he is correct but he makes sense given the available circumstantial evidence. Some of that evidence is available in the living. For example from anywhere on Earth people are quarrelsome and have a remarkable ability to reject evidence in conflict with their already made up minds. Those talents are useful for catalyzing human evolution and for maintaining a religious faith.
While not proof, circumstantial evidence can be fun and useful, especially for college professors that write books.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.