Well, ya think?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/17/neanderthals-cannibalism-anthropological-sciences-journal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/17/neanderthals-cannibalism-anthropological-sciences-journal) look here.
Quote
How Neanderthals met a grisly fate: devoured by humans
A fossil discovery bears marks of butchering similar to those made when cutting up a deer
* Buzz up!
* Digg it (36)
* Robin McKie, science editor
* The Observer, Sunday 17 May 2009
* Article history
One of science's most puzzling mysteries - the disappearance of the Neanderthals - may have been solved. Modern humans ate them, says a leading fossil expert.
The controversial suggestion follows publication of a study in the Journal of Anthropological Sciences about a Neanderthal jawbone apparently butchered by modern humans. Now the leader of the research team says he believes the flesh had been eaten by humans, while its teeth may have been used to make a necklace.
Fernando Rozzi, of Paris's Centre National de la Récherche Scientifique, said the jawbone had probably been cut into to remove flesh, including the tongue. Crucially, the butchery was similar to that used by humans to cut up deer carcass in the early Stone Age. "Neanderthals met a violent end at our hands and in some cases we ate them," Rozzi said.
The idea will provoke considerable opposition from scientists who believe Neanderthals disappeared for reasons that did not involve violence. Neanderthals were a sturdy species who evolved in Europe 300,000 years ago, made complex stone tools and survived several ice ages before they disappeared 30,000 years ago - just as modern human beings arrived in Europe from Africa.
Some researchers believe Neanderthals may have failed to compete effectively with Homo sapiens for resources, or were more susceptible to the impact of climate change. But others believe our interactions were violent and terminal for the Neanderthals. According to Rozzi, the discovery at Les Rois in south-west France provides compelling support for that argument.
Previous excavations revealed bones that were thought to be exclusively human. But Rozzi's team re-examined them and found one they concluded was Neanderthal. Importantly, it was covered in cut marks similar to those left behind when flesh is stripped from deer and other animals using stone tools.
Rozzi believes the jawbone provides crucial evidence that humans attacked Neanderthals, and sometimes killed them, bringing back their bodies to caves to eat or to use their skulls or teeth as trophies. "For years, people have tried to hide away from the evidence of cannibalism, but I think we have to accept it took place," he added.
But not every team member agrees. "One set of cut marks does not make a complete case for cannibalism," said Francesco d'Errico, of the Institute of Prehistory in Bordeaux. It was also possible that the jawbone had been found by humans and its teeth used to make a necklace, he said.
"This is a very important investigation," said Professor Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, London. "We do need more evidence, but this could indicate modern humans and Neanderthals were living in the same area of Europe at the same time, that they were interacting, and that some of these interactions may have been hostile.
"This does not prove we systematically eradicated the Neanderthals or that we regularly ate their flesh. But it does add to the evidence that competition from modern humans probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction."
I kinda buy it, though I don't actually think there is any one reason (until recent history and man's encroachment on all) historically for species dying out. Maybe they went as far as they could, given being fodder for sneaky old humans, and whatever other factors may have been at play.
But I'd put money ofn Human beings "helping" evolution along, as we've done in so many cases.
There's lots of evidence for cannibalism amongst both Neanderthals and modern man. This doesn't really mean much.
Quotewhile its teeth may have been used to make a necklace
Another species falls to mans need for fashion. I blame the gays
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.
No matter how resourceful you are their are only a finite amount of resources. If something is better at getting those recources resources first (probably us) then you die out. Once we spread out far enough they were screwed. Either humas outcompeted them, bred them into extinction, or killed them all (eatting not necessary).
i think the killing one is more accurate. Humans are good at killing stuff. It's what we do.
Quote from: HVC on May 18, 2009, 10:38:58 PM
i think the killing one is more accurate. Humans are good at killing stuff. It's what we do.
We're also good at fucking.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 18, 2009, 11:24:48 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 18, 2009, 10:38:58 PM
i think the killing one is more accurate. Humans are good at killing stuff. It's what we do.
We're also good at fucking.
Depends on whether humans and neanderthals could cross breed. Or even if either species found the other ones attractive. I mean Brain aside how many of us would nail a bonobo?
QuoteNeanderthals eaten by Syt's ancestors?
:zipped:
I don't understand how one can claim that the early humans killed and eat them. Eating yes, but they could be scavengers.
Lots of evidence suggests they survived and turned into desertdwelling arab camel herders.
Quote from: HVC on May 18, 2009, 11:35:57 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 18, 2009, 11:24:48 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 18, 2009, 10:38:58 PM
i think the killing one is more accurate. Humans are good at killing stuff. It's what we do.
We're also good at fucking.
Depends on whether humans and neanderthals could cross breed. Or even if either species found the other ones attractive. I mean Brain aside how many of us would nail a bonobo?
neanderthals and humans are closer to each other than humans and bonobos <_< one looks like an ape, the other like a yokel. and as we all know, yokels fuck humans
we're probably dealing with multiple forms of pressure on the neanderthals that caused their extinction
Modern humans were smarter, capable of more abstract thought. There's a tech-gap between sapiens andneanderthalensis.
Sapiens was also present in far greater numbers. At least 10 times the population-density I've been told.
And we probably killed and ate some of them.
Some crossbreeding is possible but afaik, still unproven.
That said, I can already see the story here: look at us evil humans destroying neanderthalensis. Queu comparison to modern day events... <_<
There were most likely quite some cross-breeding between neanderthals and humans. People are known to fuck anything with a hole, including many of our four-legged friends, so why not something with two legs that is actually quite similar to us, narcissism of the small differences aside?
As for whether they would produce fertile offspring, I don't see any reason why not. Anyway as soon as we have mapped the neanderthal genome, which is in the making, we will simply compare their genome to ours and we will know if there are neanderthal genes among the humans who spread out of Africa. We will also know which human race contain the most neanderthal DNA - my bet is on the Slavs, based on appearance.
Quote from: miglia on May 19, 2009, 06:56:43 AM
We will also know which human race contain the most neanderthal DNA - my bet is on the Slavs, based on appearance.
I'm not quite sure if you are serious or joking... <_<
How many sets of Neanderthal bones have been found? A lot I think...and no butchering until now.
It is interesting to wonder how/why Neanderthals died out. They were the tougher, larger, stronger species but with a less adaptable intelligence. Sapiens were more creative, probably allowing larger societies, adding to survivability and advanced their tech more easily. That all must have been the difference, and it could be argued that it was the deciding factor between the two branches of humans. I do wonder if Sapiens and Neanderthals were so different that they wouldn't intermingle, or if they did mingle then the result was the less numerous Neanderthals dying out as a separate group?
Quote"For years, people have tried to hide away from the evidence of cannibalism, but I think we have to accept it took place,"
Aren't Neanderthals another species?
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.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2009, 08:02:47 AM
Quote"For years, people have tried to hide away from the evidence of cannibalism, but I think we have to accept it took place,"
Aren't Neanderthals another species?
They are classified as one by many, but no one is sure. If we could interbreed with them, I suppose the answer is "no".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction_hypotheses
QuoteEver since their discovery, both the Neanderthals place in the human family tree and their relation to modern Europeans have been hotly debated. At different times they have been classified as a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis) and as a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis).
I would think "cannibalism" isn't an inappropriate word in the circumstances.
Quote from: Siege on May 19, 2009, 08:09:25 AM
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.
Yeah, this was going on in the Americas, and everywhere around the world and history for that matter, I'd say. Pre-historic humans would likely do the same.
Quote from: Siege on May 19, 2009, 08:09:25 AM
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.
The patronising romanticisation of the Native peoples is pretty tiresome. The 'noble savage' myth dies hard.
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 08:15:31 AM
I would think "cannibalism" isn't an inappropriate word in the circumstances.
Alrighty then.
Anyway if we can interbreed with them they almost assuredly just melded with the existing community over time.
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).
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2009, 08:19:18 AM
The patronising romanticisation of the Native peoples is pretty tiresome. The 'noble savage' myth dies hard.
I think he was being sarcastic. :D
Quote from: KRonn on May 19, 2009, 08:17:53 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 19, 2009, 08:09:25 AM
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.
Yeah, this was going on in the Americas, and everywhere around the world and history for that matter, I'd say. Pre-historic humans would likely do the same.
Heh, when we think of primitive natives, we usually think of tribes who aren't really all that "primitive" at all - for one, most tribes we know of are actually agricultural (the notable exceptions being the indians of the West coast of north america).
Agriculturalists are usually much more violent and warlike than true hunter gatherers, by reason of higher population densities and greater degree of organization (again, west coast natives are the exception).
That doesn't mean that hunter gatherers are necessarily romantically peaceful by any means - only that their form of violence more resembles individual murdering and feuding a la the Hatfields and McCoys than what we wold call warfare or ethnic cleansing.
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 08:25:59 AM
My own opinion is that the extinction was a very gradual process, rather than some violent campaign of "ethnic [or species] cleansing".
Agreed that it was probably gradual, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't violent or without cleansing.
The Neanderthals were shorter but probably much more physically stronger than humans. I wouldn't be surprised if every single encounter between the two was a violent one, due to the human intrinsical mistrust of strangers, let alone a clearly diferent species.
Also, the Neanderthals probably stole and raped a lot of human females. They were obviosly prettier and taller than their own ugly women.
When you look at the diferences between humans and neanderthals, I think there is a lot of potential for "violence-on-sight".
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 18, 2009, 08:58:17 PM
I kinda buy it, though I don't actually think there is any one reason (until recent history and man's encroachment on all) historically for species dying out. Maybe they went as far as they could, given being fodder for sneaky old humans, and whatever other factors may have been at play.
But I'd put money ofn Human beings "helping" evolution along, as we've done in so many cases.
But not every team member agrees. "One set of cut marks does not make a complete case for cannibalism," said Francesco d'Errico, of the Institute of Prehistory in Bordeaux. It was also possible that the jawbone had been found by humans and its teeth used to make a necklace, he said.that's the important part, there's simply not enough data to make a conclusion right now.
Quote from: Siege on May 19, 2009, 08:45:44 AM
Also, the Neanderthals probably stole and raped a lot of human females. They were obviosly prettier and taller than their own ugly women.
Assuming their standards of beauty are the same as ours... A gorilla might not find your wife to be cute, yet, I'm pretty sure you think she is. To a gorilla's eyes, a human female would probably look too thin and too frail. So making the assumption that Neanderthals would automatically find human female 'pretty' is quite a subjective argument, and is totally baseless.
Besides, aren't you some kind of creationist? Doesn't it contradict the Torah or some old book that there was a humanoïd species not totally human before we appeared?
Quote
When you look at the diferences between humans and neanderthals, I think there is a lot of potential for "violence-on-sight".
Not everyone is an Israeli, you know. They don't find the urges to kill their neighbours on sight just because they don't have the exact same culture.
Quote from: Siege on May 19, 2009, 08:45:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 08:25:59 AM
My own opinion is that the extinction was a very gradual process, rather than some violent campaign of "ethnic [or species] cleansing".
Agreed that it was probably gradual, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't violent or without cleansing.
The Neanderthals were shorter but probably much more physically stronger than humans. I wouldn't be surprised if every single encounter between the two was a violent one, due to the human intrinsical mistrust of strangers, let alone a clearly diferent species.
Also, the Neanderthals probably stole and raped a lot of human females. They were obviosly prettier and taller than their own ugly women.
When you look at the diferences between humans and neanderthals, I think there is a lot of potential for "violence-on-sight".
Heh, different species may have different notions of beauty. You don't find gorillas raping humans much. :lol:
On the contrary, I would expect that in general the two species (assuming that they are different species) probably avoided each other more often than they fought - that's the usual pattern with hunter-gatherer bands, who generally have elaborate territorial "rules" which divy up the landscape for purposes of exploitation (think of the notion of having "traplines". 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).
You forget that, to these people, the local neanderthals/humans would not necessarily be "strangers" - they grew up and lived in the same locations over generations. This would not of course have precluded a degree of conflict, but it would most probably have been more like a family feud than a military campaign of extermination - the latter was simply beyond the organizational capacity of humans living in bands of hunter-gatherers.
The sort of mass extermination and displacement familiar to us seems to be a product of the agricultural revolution - but that occurred long after the neanderthals were history.
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 08:27:09 AM
I think he was being sarcastic. :D
I know. I was agreeing with his point.
Quote from: viper37 on May 19, 2009, 08:54:22 AM
Not everyone is an Israeli, you know. They don't find the urges to kill their neighbours on sight just because they don't have the exact same culture.
Maybe they were like the Quebecouis, and tried to force the neanderthals to speak French. The horror of that fate did them in. :P
Neandertals eaten by the Galactica's crew.
:whistle:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 19, 2009, 09:14:57 AM
Neandertals eaten by the Galactica's crew.
:whistle:
Mystery solved... Hmm... the Galatica crew did see primitive humans when they landed. :unsure:
Quote from: Tyr on May 19, 2009, 07:30:32 AM
How many sets of Neanderthal bones have been found? A lot I think...and no butchering until now.
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.
Also, for the "how did Neanderthals die out?" people, remember that the the time span is long here, not decades, not centuries, but thousands and thousands of years to decline and disappear...
Quote from: PDH on May 19, 2009, 09:39:16 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 19, 2009, 07:30:32 AM
How many sets of Neanderthal bones have been found? A lot I think...and no butchering until now.
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.
I have read in the past theoriest about Neanderthal's preparing their dead in this way. But why is this the first we hear of humasn eating them?
Quote from: Tyr on May 19, 2009, 09:42:48 AM
I have read in the past theoriest about Neanderthal's preparing their dead in this way. But why is this the first we hear of humasn eating them?
There seems little reason to deflesh a corpse, especially when very little other ritual activity takes place among Neanderthals (and yes, the "burials" are still contended mightily, do not let one side or the other fool you), unless it is to use the flesh for some practical purpose. The marks are very much (exactly, perhaps) the same as used to butcher game.
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 08:25:59 AM
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.
Maybe, but Neathanderals lasted for a very, very long time. They appear to have been quite adaptable and able to thrive under very difficult environmental conditions.
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 19, 2009, 10:02:31 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 08:25:59 AM
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.
Maybe, but Neathanderals lasted for a very, very long time. They appear to have been quite adaptable and able to thrive under very difficult environmental conditions.
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.
Certainly. Recent evidence on DNA tends to suggest that they did not interbreed, but it isn't conclusive.
In any event, my theory is not of a sudden disappearance, but of a very gradual displacement. Even a small difference in birth and death rates would, over millennia, account for the disappearance quite easily.
Quote from: Tyr on May 19, 2009, 09:42:48 AM
Quote from: PDH on May 19, 2009, 09:39:16 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 19, 2009, 07:30:32 AM
How many sets of Neanderthal bones have been found? A lot I think...and no butchering until now.
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.
I have read in the past theoriest about Neanderthal's preparing their dead in this way. But why is this the first we hear of humasn eating them?
Yeah, exactly.
And even if somebody was eating them, why did it have to be humans?
Maybe eating the flesh of their own dead was part of the Neanderthal burial ritual.
Quote from: Siege on May 19, 2009, 11:34:27 AM
Yeah, exactly.
And even if somebody was eating them, why did it have to be humans?
Maybe eating the flesh of their own dead was part of the Neanderthal burial ritual.
maybe they threw the flesh down the wells of the H. sapien sapiens.
Quote from: viper37 on May 19, 2009, 08:54:22 AM
Besides, aren't you some kind of creationist? Doesn't it contradict the Torah or some old book that there was a humanoïd species not totally human before we appeared?
Of course I don't believe in any of this non-sense, the same way I don't believe in Aliens.
However, in both cases I found it to be very interesting.
Quote from: Siege on May 19, 2009, 11:38:59 AM
Of course I don't believe in any of this non-sense, the same way I don't believe in Aliens.
Except we do not dig up bones of aliens or have aliens swinging from trees all over the world :P
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 08:56:34 AM
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 (http://www.bigorrin.org/yurok_kids.htm) in California to the Powhatans (http://www.bigorrin.org/powhatan_kids.htm) in Virginia, from the Cheyennes (http://www.bigorrin.org/cheyenne_kids.htm) in the Great Plains to the Naskapi Innu (http://www.bigorrin.org/innu_kids.htm) 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.
They had it coming if you ask me.
Quote from: PDH on May 19, 2009, 09:39:16 AM
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 where they hunted for their meat or were they killed in war, then eaten?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 19, 2009, 10:02:31 AM
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
Quote from: viper37 on May 19, 2009, 11:56:14 AM
Quote from: PDH on May 19, 2009, 09:39:16 AM
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...
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
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 19, 2009, 12:03:10 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on May 19, 2009, 12:05:08 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 19, 2009, 12:03:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 08:25:59 AM
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.
Might not even be a neanderthal
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/early_modern/europe/les-rois-2009-aurignacian.html
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 19, 2009, 12:11:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 08:25:59 AM
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. :contract:
cool link timmay thx. seems a reasoned view this guy has too, at first glance anyhow.
Quote from: viper37 on May 19, 2009, 11:54:37 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 08:56:34 AM
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 (http://www.bigorrin.org/yurok_kids.htm) in California to the Powhatans (http://www.bigorrin.org/powhatan_kids.htm) in Virginia, from the Cheyennes (http://www.bigorrin.org/cheyenne_kids.htm) in the Great Plains to the Naskapi Innu (http://www.bigorrin.org/innu_kids.htm) 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".
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 12:35:27 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 19, 2009, 11:54:37 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 08:56:34 AM
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 (http://www.bigorrin.org/yurok_kids.htm) in California to the Powhatans (http://www.bigorrin.org/powhatan_kids.htm) in Virginia, from the Cheyennes (http://www.bigorrin.org/cheyenne_kids.htm) in the Great Plains to the Naskapi Innu (http://www.bigorrin.org/innu_kids.htm) 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. :(
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 12:35:27 PM
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 (http://www.kipawa.com/1nation.htm)
Note that they describe *themselves* as "Algonquin":
http://www.kipawa.com/algonqui.htm (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 :P You city guys always think the north is a few km away from you city, pfft :P
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 kinshiphttp://www.tolatsga.org/alg.html
Viper = 0/Malthus = 1
Quote from: Ancient Demon on May 18, 2009, 10:33:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Siege on May 19, 2009, 08:09:25 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on May 19, 2009, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 19, 2009, 08:09:25 AM
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.
Shut your trap before I cleanse you with my dick.
You know back then everybody fought that way.
Quote from: Siege on May 19, 2009, 04:37:57 PM
Shut your trap before I cleanse you with my dick.
You know, I'm pretty sure he'd like that.
If you want to scare him, you'd better be using something like that:
http://airworksinflatables.com/Images/images_1/Projects_images/performance_images/kut_kast/pussy1.jpg
Quote from: Martinus on May 19, 2009, 04:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on May 18, 2009, 10:33:45 PM
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.
:lol:
Quote from: viper37 on May 19, 2009, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 12:35:27 PM
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 (http://www.kipawa.com/1nation.htm)
Note that they describe *themselves* as "Algonquin":
http://www.kipawa.com/algonqui.htm (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 :P You city guys always think the north is a few km away from you city, pfft :P
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
North for me = driving six hours north of Toronto. To get REALLY north, I suppose you would have to drive a couple of days - but that would not really be all that practical in a cottage. :lol:
Anyway, interesting note on the patrilineal descent of hunting rights; I suspect that this or similar arrangements were more common among "primitive" hunters and gatherers than we realize. What looks to us like untamed primordial wilderness was as well known (and divided by various traditional rights and obligations) to hunter-gatherers as any city block.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 19, 2009, 12:03:10 PM
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
Thanks for the link DP. The H. sapiens on H. Neanderthalis action was especially edifying. :boff:
I liked that show, but the Neanderthals in it all had faces like cheesy Star Trek TOS aliens or something.
I would just like to point out that Iroquois ate Algonquins. or the tasty, magical, organs parts at least.
today they sell me cigarettes. there's a definite connection. gotta be. :grope:
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 08:56:34 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 19, 2009, 08:45:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 19, 2009, 08:25:59 AM
My own opinion is that the extinction was a very gradual process, rather than some violent campaign of "ethnic [or species] cleansing".
Agreed that it was probably gradual, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't violent or without cleansing.
The Neanderthals were shorter but probably much more physically stronger than humans. I wouldn't be surprised if every single encounter between the two was a violent one, due to the human intrinsical mistrust of strangers, let alone a clearly diferent species.
Also, the Neanderthals probably stole and raped a lot of human females. They were obviosly prettier and taller than their own ugly women.
When you look at the diferences between humans and neanderthals, I think there is a lot of potential for "violence-on-sight".
Heh, different species may have different notions of beauty. You don't find gorillas raping humans much. :lol:
KONG. :P