Neanderthals eaten by Syt's ancestors?

[viper37]

Until we know one way or another whether they could breed with HSS, it's all just speculation.  If they could interbreed, I think we have our answer.

maybe they could interbreed and now they play hockey?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0emzMJ6FiwQ&feature=player_embedded

[The Brain]

Actually, a fair number of Neanderthal bones show typical marks of removal of flesh from the bones.  A good reason for doing this is to prepare the meat for cooking, and the marks seem consistant with game bones so treated.

but when they hunted for their meat or were they killed in war, then eaten?

Questions, questions...

[DisturbedPervert]

There's a Neanderthal documentary on youtube that's kinda interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsSOcwY79ig&feature=PlayList&p=65A148E0CB433528&index=0&playnext=1

[The Brain]

There's a Neanderthal documentary on youtube that's kinda interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsSOcwY79ig&feature=PlayList&p=65A148E0CB433528&index=0&playnext=1

While showing signs of some basic skills their documentaries lack finesse and creativity.

[Syt]

There's a Neanderthal documentary on youtube that's kinda interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsSOcwY79ig&feature=PlayList&p=65A148E0CB433528&index=0&playnext=1

While showing signs of some basic skills their documentaries lack finesse and creativity.

Yeah, they have nothing on the B Ark people.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

My own opinion is that the extinction was a very gradual process, rather than some violent campaign of "ethnic [or species] cleansing".

Whatever they were, Neanderthals were apex predators: evidence suggests they were more or less exclusively carnivorous. Apex predators are usually very vulnerable to ecosystem changes. Modern humans were omnivorous - capable of being apex predators it is true, but also capable of surviving on plants when meat wasn't available - hence greater population densities. I would imagine humans occasionally dined on neanderthals (and probably vice versa), but more significantly, any down-turn in the seasonal environment would hit the neanderthals harder: after each famine the percentage of humans was greater and the percentage of neanderthals was lesser; until after millennia, there just were no more neanderthals.

If you look at conflict among hunter-gatherers in the modern world at least, campaigns of outright extermination are pretty well non-existant - for one, that would require the sort of mass organization that in general hunter gatherers cannot do; secondly, hunter gatherers are usually very leery of tangling with such aggression except in the performance of a private blood feud (usually not uncommon) - fighting creatures that hunt for a living is, well, very dangerous. More likely is a sort of very gradual displacement, maybe aided by the occasional murder (and cannibalism).

This is a very reasonable theory imho.

[jimmy olsen]

Might not even be a neanderthal

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/early_modern/europe/les-rois-2009-aurignacian.html

[The Brain]

My own opinion is that the extinction was a very gradual process, rather than some violent campaign of "ethnic [or species] cleansing".

Whatever they were, Neanderthals were apex predators: evidence suggests they were more or less exclusively carnivorous. Apex predators are usually very vulnerable to ecosystem changes. Modern humans were omnivorous - capable of being apex predators it is true, but also capable of surviving on plants when meat wasn't available - hence greater population densities. I would imagine humans occasionally dined on neanderthals (and probably vice versa), but more significantly, any down-turn in the seasonal environment would hit the neanderthals harder: after each famine the percentage of humans was greater and the percentage of neanderthals was lesser; until after millennia, there just were no more neanderthals.

If you look at conflict among hunter-gatherers in the modern world at least, campaigns of outright extermination are pretty well non-existant - for one, that would require the sort of mass organization that in general hunter gatherers cannot do; secondly, hunter gatherers are usually very leery of tangling with such aggression except in the performance of a private blood feud (usually not uncommon) - fighting creatures that hunt for a living is, well, very dangerous. More likely is a sort of very gradual displacement, maybe aided by the occasional murder (and cannibalism).

This is a very reasonable theory imho.

Except that a killing would have to be unlawful to be murder. I find it very unlikely that there existed an established interspecial legal framework.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

cool link timmay thx. seems a reasoned view this guy has too, at first glance anyhow.

[Malthus]

The local Algonkians where my family now has a cottage, for example, had traditional lakes and rivers which were the "property" of individual families for purposes of hunting, worked out over generations).

Small nitpick: Algonkians refer to the language family.

Algonquian tribes range from the Yurok in California to  the Powhatans in Virginia, from the  Cheyennes in the Great Plains to the  Naskapi Innu in frigid northern Labrador. Obviously, the Naskapi couldn't keep warm wearing grass skirts like the Yurok, and the buffalo-hunting culture of the Cheyennes would have been useless to the Powhatans (no buffalo roamed the forests of Virginia!) Making generalizations about "Algonquian Indians" is difficult at best.


most likely, they were Montagnais/Innus or Cree (closer to Hudson&James Bay), depending on where your cottage is.  My bet would be on the Montagnais.

Though the part you quoted refers to "Algonquian tribes". That's exactly the sense I'm using the word - as a description for a group of people. It is not correct that the name refers only to the language, or at least, that is not how it is actually used.

Here is the tribal website (the modern area is a wonderful thing):

http://www.kipawa.com/1nation.htm

Note that they describe *themselves* as "Algonquin":

http://www.kipawa.com/algonqui.htm

I've never heard anyone refer to them as anything but some variant of "Algonquin".

[The Brain]

The local Algonkians where my family now has a cottage, for example, had traditional lakes and rivers which were the "property" of individual families for purposes of hunting, worked out over generations).

Small nitpick: Algonkians refer to the language family.

Algonquian tribes range from the Yurok in California to  the Powhatans in Virginia, from the  Cheyennes in the Great Plains to the  Naskapi Innu in frigid northern Labrador. Obviously, the Naskapi couldn't keep warm wearing grass skirts like the Yurok, and the buffalo-hunting culture of the Cheyennes would have been useless to the Powhatans (no buffalo roamed the forests of Virginia!) Making generalizations about "Algonquian Indians" is difficult at best.


most likely, they were Montagnais/Innus or Cree (closer to Hudson&James Bay), depending on where your cottage is.  My bet would be on the Montagnais.

Though the part you quoted refers to "Algonquian tribes". That's exactly the sense I'm using the word - as a description for a group of people. It is not correct that the name refers only to the language, or at least, that is not how it is actually used.

English isn't his first language.

[viper37]

Though the part you quoted refers to "Algonquian tribes". That's exactly the sense I'm using the word - as a description for a group of people. It is not correct that the name refers only to the language, or at least, that is not how it is actually used.

Here is the tribal website (the modern area is a wonderful thing):

http://www.kipawa.com/1nation.htm

Note that they describe *themselves* as "Algonquin":

http://www.kipawa.com/algonqui.htm

I've never heard anyone refer to them as anything but some variant of "Algonquin".

ah, see, it is a common mistake
Algonquin= an indian tribe.
AlgonquiAn = a group of indian sharing a similar language, including the Algonkin (or Algonquin).

I checked were Kipawa was, and since it's not what I actually call Northern Quebec, an Algonkin tribe makes senses.  And it's not Northern Quebec, it's Temiscaming or (Abitibi-Temiscaming).  Rouyn-Noranda and Val D'Or are actually more to the north tant this   You city guys always think the north is a few km away from you city, pfft

Just teasing you of course   It's just that I always thought your family's cottage was closer to Ungava than this, my bad

But there's no 'A' to the tribe's name.



EDIT:
I was curious to your comment of individual property of rivers&such, so I looked it up and it seems to pre-date the Europeans arrivals.  Quite interesting

Here it is:
The Algonkin were patrilineal with the right to use specific hunting territories being passed from father to son, but some Algonquian tribes used matrilineal descent (traced through the mother) in determining kinship
http://www.tolatsga.org/alg.html

[Siege]

Viper = 0/Malthus = 1

[Martinus]

I still don't really understand how a species as advanced and resourceful as the Neanderthals somehow couldn't avoid complete extermination. OK, so they're not as smart as humans, and could be outcompeted; nevertheless the world is a big place, I can't imagine how it could have got to the point where no Neanderthal community of any size could survive anywhere.

Who said they were exterminated completely? Hell, one of them has even become the governor of California.

[Martinus]

Stone age ethnic cleansing?

Come on, impossible.
Primitive people lived atuned with nature.
They protected their enviroment and loved each other.

Next, they are going to acusse the native-americans of waging war and cleansing smaller tribes.
Outrageous.

Noone could compare to ancient Hebrews when it comes to ethnic cleansing.