It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cannibal Humans Ate Neanderthals Into Extinction

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
In the end science and evidence mean nothing. People will choose to believe whatever confirms their suspicions and beliefs. Stories are just latched on to provide new proofs for what they have convinced themselves is the truth.

Mike




posted on May, 20 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Yes but for conversations sake it is MORE interesting when people put forth different theories that are based on something.

Saying things that amount to "stop bashing humans, human's probably wouldn't do that" and then repeating that same phrase a few times or saying "humans are the best and smartest hunters, so we must have wiped them all out cause we are great" does not qualify as fruitful discussion. That is the sort of comment that gets on my last nerve, especially when they defend their position to the end.

mmichael I am not referring to your comments, no reason to get defensive.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610


Saying things that amount to "stop bashing humans, human's probably wouldn't do that" and then repeating that same phrase a few times or saying "humans are the best and smartest hunters, so we must have wiped them all out cause we are great" does not qualify as fruitful discussion. That is the sort of comment that gets on my last nerve, especially when they defend their position to the end.

mmichael I am not referring to your comments, no reason to get defensive.



My particular reactions here I think have some legitimacy. I have a pretty broad scientific background. I've published hard peer review material in my time.

Saying that, most areas of history, science, anthropology I'm still a dilettante.

I came to this thread because Neanderthal man is a particular interest and something I've read deeply on and discussed with many professional in the field.

So understand my irritation when I offer fact as opposed to hearsay and speculation, and it gets dismissed because it doesn't fill people's fantasy agendas.

Neanderthal man was a human being. Any assumption to the contrary is incorrect.

Mike



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   


Originally posted by Sonya610
Not sure about protein content, but human flesh is very greasy.


High fat content was also extremely important to early humans their high activity levels demanded lots of calories. Fats are still vital to humans we just don't see it in processed foods.

I know chimps will kill monkeys for meat. I found this kind of interesting...


Meat now, sex later for Ivorian chimps
Chimpanzees trade precious scraps of meat for sex, new research shows. A two-year study of wild chimps finds that males boost their chances of having sex with a female by offering her meat.

edit: oops forgot the link....www.newscientist.com...

To make this case, her team recorded meat-sharing over 22 months, noting who gave meat to whom. After a successful monkey hunt females tended to surround a male hunter and make whimpering pleas. In some cases, the male handed meat to a female, but more often than not he simply allowed her access to the carcass. The male with the meat decides who gets it, Gomes says.

Males, also, seem no more eager to hunt or share meat when females are likely to get pregnant.




[edit on 20-5-2009 by Morningglory]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael



I came to this thread because Neanderthal man is a particular interest and something I've read deeply on and discussed with many professional in the field.

So understand my irritation when I offer fact as opposed to hearsay and speculation, and it gets dismissed because it doesn't fill people's fantasy agendas.

Neanderthal man was a human being. Any assumption to the contrary is incorrect.

Mike


i share you interest for the Neanderthals also since the first time i saw a place up here in the belgian ardens where they supposed to have lived. The sight of the location chosen to make camp millions of years ago stunned me beyond words.

But as a amateur with a huge interrest in the topic i have to point u at the work done by: Igor V. Ovchinnikov, Anders Götherström, Galina P. Romanova,Vitaliy M. Kharitonov, Kerstin Lidén, William Goodwin . Researchers with alot of credentials who clearly state :

Phylogenetic analysis arranged the data to show the evolutionary relationship of the different DNA sequences by was performed. When the Neanderthal DNA was compared to 5,846 modern human DNA sequences it was sufficiently different to be considered a different group. This indicates that the two Neanderthal sequences are closely related to each other and that the 5,846 modern human DNA sequences are closely related to each other but that the Neanderthal mtDNA is in a different cluster than all modern human sequences. Together these analyses of Neanderthal DNA provide support for the hypothesis of no or a very low gene flow between the Neanderthals and modern humans and points to the Neanderthals existence as a separate branch of hominid evolution [5].

but anyway like i told before its a very difficult time to study without any visual proof.

Also on of the posters mentions that no cavedrawings or the like have been found depicting a Neanderthaler in it. The oldest known cavedrawings in EU were made long after the neanderthaler was already extinct

I guess the oldest drawing dates more or less 16000BC and the neaderthaler was extinct around 30000BC . i could be wrong but i did a quick google on the dates and came up with this.

But i'm sure there's alot of folks up here who are alot better informed then me on the matter. To bad those particular members are bashing each other instead of contributing some of their knowledge.....

ATS has really become a sad place in the last couple of years.




posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Eh, I hate articles like this.
Barely enough information to understand the reasoning behind the statements made on the find, and a sensational presentation of the study itself.

To me, this shows some of the attitudes of ATS members, at least.
Plenty of people jumping on the "We humans are evil, Neanderthal was just a peaceful nature dude!"

Neanderthal was part of the more intense time periods of human existence.
It was a time of huge prey, and huge and powerful predators.
Neanderthal had their own weapons, their own abilities.

This amounts to some far of descendant or alien visitor finding the remains of one butchered human leg bone (for whatever reason) and deciding that all humans were cannibals.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spartannic

i share you interest for the Neanderthals also since the first time i saw a place up here in the belgian ardens where they supposed to have lived. The sight of the location chosen to make camp millions of years ago stunned me beyond words.

But as a amateur with a huge interrest in the topic i have to point u at the work done by: Igor V. Ovchinnikov, Anders Götherström, Galina P. Romanova,Vitaliy M. Kharitonov, Kerstin Lidén, William Goodwin

Also on of the posters mentions that no cavedrawings or the like have been found depicting a Neanderthaler in it. The oldest known cavedrawings in EU were made long after the neanderthaler was already extinct

I guess the oldest drawing dates more or less 16000BC and the neaderthaler was extinct around 30000BC . i could be wrong but i did a quick google on the dates and came up with this.

But i'm sure there's alot of folks up here who are alot better informed then me on the matter. To bad those particular members are bashing each other instead of contributing some of their knowledge.....

ATS has really become a sad place in the last couple of years.


Thanks for the feedback. Quick post as I'm just out the door. But more soon.

There are two strains of Neanderthal - the older 'classical' model and a more
advanced one. Both seem to have existed overlappingly in time in different regions. DNA evidence may have been only done on the former.

It is felt now there were Neanderthal men as late as 25,000 BC if not later.

Newer discoveries point to a hybridization with Cro-magnon, at least in some cases. This is the most undeveloped area of research.

The jury is still out.

I agree ATS is not what it once was or should be.


Mike



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I'm not exactly who in hell suggested that Neanderthals were extinct, as my ex-son-inlaw is living proof to the contrary.

A jaw can get cuts in many ways. Give a Neanderthal jawbone to a child with some sharp stones and see what happens to the jaw. You'll find cuts, chips, and all sorts of marks.

Nothing to do with cannibalism.

There is nothing, and I mean nothing on an jaw to be butchered for any meat of any significance.

Unless they had gold teeth.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   


i share you interest for the Neanderthals also since the first time i saw a place up here in the belgian ardens where they supposed to have lived. The sight of the location chosen to make camp millions of years ago stunned me beyond words.
reply to post by Spartannic
 

Can you describe the sight? I'm interested in whether the camp may have been chosen because it was defensable against other humans or preditors.

My theory goes something like if the 2 species had to coexist, the Neandrathals either avoided early modern man or lived in places they could defend against them.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spartannic
I guess the oldest drawing dates more or less 16000BC and the neaderthaler was extinct around 30000BC . i could be wrong but i did a quick google on the dates and came up with this.


I think these days the earliest cave art in Europe goes back to 30,000 (of course could be much older stuff they haven't found, or that was buried). They also push the arrival of homosapiens in Europe further and further back all the time, so it seems Neanderthal and HomoSapiens could have both been in Europe for a long time before Neanderthal went exist.

But I do agree with you Neanderthals and HomoSapiens are separate species, and modern science suggests very little if any mixing went on (and survived in current genepools). Another poster kept saying they were "human beings" which is not a species, but more of a general definition. They may have been as intellectually and emotionally complex as homosapiens, it is hard to tell, but whether the genes mixed is less difficult.


Originally posted by plumranchMy theory goes something like if the 2 species had to coexist, the Neandrathals either avoided early modern man or lived in places they could defend against them.


They almost certainly coexisted for tens of thousands of years. Neanderthals were physically stronger than HomoSapiens so early on they would have had the advantage. It appear HomoSapiens got a big advantage when they started getting good at throwing spears and then discovered arrows.

But they do NOT know if they actually battled each other, or if one species just thrived and eventaully pushed the other into extinction. They really don't know why Neanderthals went extinct.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

[edit on 20-5-2009 by Sonya610]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
i won't descibe it to you . ill show you on google maps where its situated!

You really have to see the whole location to understand how these early humanoids chose their habitat. At first when u see the site you don't have the WOW-feeling. The more i went there, since its not that far from my hometown (something like 160km) The more i started noticing the real reason why they stayed there. The area is filled up with caves that made excellent housing back then. Its pretty close to a river (whats seems to be key in settling) And you can see around you nature was abundant back then cause it kinda still is. It situated in a very fertile ground of belgium.

I know they didn't farm or so but it seems clear to me that any plant who grows in nature is gonna produce more "offspring" on fertile ground.And even the most simple animal knows its good to stay where there is enough food.

Also i really think alot of you should look at the difference in tools WE and THEM made. If you really look in detail and WANT to understand whats so different about them. Sure they had some basic skills in weaponbuilding. But its kinda like comparing a car from now with a car from 20 years ago. At first everything seems alike but trust me or even better go and research it yourselfs to and your really gonna learn to respect your ancestors in ways you can't imagine.

but i guess you can't show respect for our own human race up here anymore. Seems everybody up here is ashamed to be called human. Tell that to the billions upon billions who fought to survive on this sometimes dangerous planet...



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Ops i forgot to add the link to google maps sorry
maps.google.be... N&tab=wl

If u look at the southern part under the river u will see a water treatment plant. The site is located about 300 m to the west.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 

thx for the reply

your right that the oldest drawings are from 30000BC (i was still kinda stuck in lasqeaux in France with my date ... :-) )

Anyway to give the people of ATS an idea how they look like here is one of them dated 30.000 BC :



While i never really thought of it before, you put my mind in motion to wonder if some of those "out of place" drawings in france could not be made by Neanderthalers who tried to mimic human behavior??



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610

Neanderthals and HomoSapiens are separate species, and modern science suggests very little if any mixing went on (and survived in current genepools). Another poster kept saying they were "human beings" which is not a species, but more of a general definition. They may have been as intellectually and emotionally complex as homosapiens, it is hard to tell, but whether the genes mixed is less difficult.




This has been the accepted view for decades. The absence of any hybridized remains implied it. But things have changed significantly in the last decade. The first unambiguous hybrid remains were found 10 years ago. Now there is a move to re-examine other remains particularly questionable ones where a skull is absent. A number have been reclassified already.

So far the only substantiated evidence of hybridization has been from within Europe. Uncertain is whether this is particular to the region, or a result of too small a sampling base. There have been very few confirmed neanderthal skulls found anywhere.

Confusing this further are indications that homo sapiens neanderthalis was widespread and we now learn there are significant regional variants. The commoner classical type, and a less common more modern one as we get closer in time. It is looking as if actually different remains have been incorrectly lumped together under one classification where in fact there needs to be a newer sub-category or complete reclassification.

Given the general conservatism of any discipline, there is a strong reluctance to concede this emerging data is significant as it's implications radically modify long accepted tenets.

But the accumulating hard evidence isn't easily dismissed.


Mike




www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au...


There is no consensus over whether modern humans and Neandertals
interbred. Those who think they did, such as Wolpoff and many of his
students, do refer to some fossils in eastern Europe as transitional,
including skulls from Mladec and Vindija. But these skulls are not their
only support. More important are features of Neandertal anatomy that may
also appear in modern Europeans with greater frequency than they appear in
other living modern humans. Projecting noses, for instance, or a rounded
lump on the back of the skull called an occipital bun.








www.freeessays.cc...

Implications of Neanderthal-Homo Sapiens Hybrid from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) In a recent excavation at Abrigo do Lagar Velho in Portugal, Duarte et al (1999) unearthed what was later to be recognized as early human skeletal remains which pointed to interbreeding between Neanderthal and Modern Humans during the mid - upper Palaeolithic transition.

The morphology of the remains, belonging to a child of approximately 3-4 years old, indicates a Neanderthal typology in post-cranial features, and more modern cranial features. The find has been cited as evidence of hybridization between the two traditionally separate human lines, and offers an explanation to the question of Neanderthal extinction. (Trinkaus 1999)

Anthropologists are now offered a line of evidence pointing to the contemopranity of Moderns and Neanderthals in parts of Europe and assumptions can be made about their contact: The discoverers…are making a ground-breaking claim, that the skeleton shows traces of both Neanderthal and modern human ancestry, evidence that modern humans did not simply extinguish the Neanderthals, as many researchers had come to think. Instead the two kinds of human were so alike that in Portugal, at least, they intermingled…for thousands of years. (Kunzig, 1999)

By examining the theories of human evolution, and looking at the cultural evolution of tool technology as well as the biological transitions and differences between the two types of humans, we can see that this hybridization just might be the answer.




[edit on 21-5-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spartannic
While i never really thought of it before, you put my mind in motion to wonder if some of those "out of place" drawings in france could not be made by Neanderthalers who tried to mimic human behavior??


Why would you think they tried to mimic human behavior? Because they were stupid creatures that aspired to be like Homo Sapiens? If they wanted to mimic homosapiens they probably would have mimicked arrows, and one wonders why they did not as they did come up with some other interesting inventions like adhesive to stick points onto spears.

We have no idea what they were thinking, what their philosophy on life was, why they chose to do what they did and not do other things.

Neanderthals were likely just about as intelligent as Homo Sapiens. And remember, Homo Sapiens nearly went extinct at one point too (numbers were supposedly down to about 2,000 and were almost wiped out).

An intereting note on cave paintings, apparently MANY of them were actually pornographic little drawings of females with huge breasts and genetalia, likely drawn by adolescent homosapien males. But the history books typically ignore those drawings and focus on the animals instead.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
OR...The ancient human could have found a neanderthal jawbone and whiled away the long boring days chipping at it with a piece of stone?


Fresh bone responds differently to wear than old bone. Also, butchering or removing flesh...which I think is called "deflensing"... has a particular look to it. The tool marks would tell the tale.

self-edit to say that to flense is to remove the blubber or skin from a whale...missed it by that much...

[edit on 21-5-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Can u give me a link to those 'let out' drawings. I've seen my fair share of prehistoric art and i'm really wondering how you came to the idea that it holds a share of 'prehistoric porn' ?

I'm quite interrested to see them cause up here in EU you can't find that much of them. Those venus-statue's are indeed big breasted and are about the only things found from back then that could support the "Porn" issue. Also i'm actually wondering where you base your theory on that the Neaderthaler was as intelligent as humans. .

I based my stuff on the study that showed if our brains are bigger or smaller we would lose a fair amount of processing power and on the clear fact that we are here and they are not. Also if we are that brutal and savage as you claim, why did we start to domesticate animals when we saw wildlife was getting extinct?

And what about farming? Do you even understand what a huge leap that is?

And how come we only find Chatelperronian Blades after the Modern Human entered EU ??? Maybe because they never made them before they saw ours ?

Its a hard topic to discuss since there is no real proof available and most of the current day theories are based on loose findings .

But i'm almost certain we outsmarted the Neaderthaler . No species who's intelligent and has been the dominant force for over 300000 years is gonna go down without a fight.

And its not like all humans arrived in the EU together like the army of Hannibal marching towards the neaderthalers. We arrived in small tribes and probably had to compete way outnumbered with the Neaderthaler. Maybe those odds made us be creative in weapon building. And gave us our "leap".



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Found this interesting site...

anthro.palomar.edu...



Neandertals and Cannibalism

There is circumstantial evidence that some Neandertals also obtained food at times by cannibalism. At Moula-Guercy Cave in France, 120,000-100,000 year-old human bones from 6 skeletons show clear evidence of meat and marrow removal in the same way that Neandertals processed game animal carcasses. Human cannibalism may have much greater antiquity than this. Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley believes that there is possible cannibalism evidence at an 800,000 year old site in Spain.

It would be a mistake to assume that human flesh was a major food source for Neandertals or other archaic humans. Cannibalism is not an efficient basis for subsistence because of the infrequency of human reproduction and our slow maturation rate. It does not make economic sense to exploit people as a primary food source. Cannibalism was probably more of an opportunistic activity for Neandertals and other archaic humans.





Neandertal Burials

At the early archaic human site of Atapuerca in Spain, there is evidence of the intentional storing of bones from at least 32 people in a cave chamber by as early as 300,000 years ago. This behavior suggests a belief that dead humans are not the same as other animals. By 90,000 years ago, several Neandertal cave sites provide the first reasonably good evidence of intentional burial of their dead. They presumably buried relatives and friends in shallow graves dug into the soft midden soil of their living areas at the mouths of caves and rockshelters. Usually the bodies were flexed in a fetal position. Frequently, the bones were stained with hematite , a rust-red iron ore. It is likely that the bodies were either sprinkled with hematite powder or the powdered pigment was mixed with a liquid medium, such as vegetable seed oil, and painted on the bodies. In nearly half of the 33 known Neandertal burials, stone tools and/or animal bones were found in the graves. Not all paleoanthropologists agree that these objects were intentionally placed there in funerary rites. If they were, however, it implies that the Neandertals were trying to prepare the dead for what was ahead of them. In the case of a burial in Shanidar Cave, Northern Iraq, there may have even more elaborate ritual activity. Apparently, the body of a man had been placed on pine boughs in the grave and flowers from 8 different species had been sprinkled on top. It is difficult to account for such activity by Neandertals unless it is assumed that they believed in some sort of afterlife. If they thought that their dead relatives and friends were only food or garbage, it is highly unlikely that they would have carefully buried them in this way.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spartannic

I based my stuff on the study that showed if our brains are bigger or smaller we would lose a fair amount of processing power and on the clear fact that we are here and they are not. Also if we are that brutal and savage as you claim, why did we start to domesticate animals when we saw wildlife was getting extinct?



Bad news for those unsympathetic to Neanderthal man. His brain case was slightly larger than that of his competitor. It's not impossible he was as smart or even smarter. His demise may come down to something undetermined such as his inability to adapt to climate change.

The romantic notion of him being killed off by a superior model has become accepted in our view of human development. It affects all interpretations of the evidence.

Tougher to accept is that there were two parallel contemporaneous types of human beings and the disturbing for some notion that we may have progressed more rapidly as a result of a successful hybridization that brought forth advantageous characteristic of both.

Early man was brutal the way modern man is when survival is threatened.
For them survival was a day to day challenge.

Interesting man's best friend, the dog, probably started the relationship picking up human scraps. They were light and nimble and able to follow moving groups of men through treacherous terrain. A simpatico formed, with the dogs being an available source of food when pickings got thin.


Mike





[edit on 21-5-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
All humans at some point in the past were canibals, man is one of the easiest animals to hunt.

But this canibalism wasnt the prefered lifestyle most of the time, only in times of hardship.
All of the ealry humans hunted other humans, when the going got tough.

There is such a huge stigmatism attached to cannibals, that most people refuse to belive that it was possible by thier ancestors and in some cases until fairly recently.

It not always ritual canabalism either, which seems to be the current excuse dejour.
The recent finds in the american southwest indicate that canabalism went far beyond ritual and became predation of one group by another, this lead to the building of precitpitous cliff dwellings by the anasazi.

That being said, neanderthal was more absorbed by modern humanity than driven to extiction.

Neanderthal was driven into the "wilderness", the remote places of europe and the near east by competion from modern humans.

In these places, Iberia, the balkans and the remote forests of scandanavia neanderthals persisted until they became absorbed by the growing modern human population.
I read an article many years ago by an anthroplogist who made this assertion, and his views were widley criticized as being racist.
He maintained that in certain areas of europe and eurasia that, you can still see the influence of the neanderthal morphology in the modern population.
In some places neander and modern man appear to have co-existed peacefully. There are sites in isreal and lebanon that the two shared seasonal habition sites.

It really boils down to the subsistance pressures of the area, where there is enough food to go around youll find human populations living more peacefully than population that have to compete intesively for food.

In the hills of the coast range near the bay area, there is a wetland/marsh.The area has a mild climate in the winter with ample waterfowl, shell fish and such.
Archeologists have found that 2 unrealted tribes shared this area as a wintering place. Indians from a coastal dwelling tribe moved inland and settled the west shore and indians from the central valley came over the hill and settled the east side. They lived together without strife and traded stuff between each other.




Interesting man's best friend, the dog, probably started the relationship picking up human scraps. They were light and nimble and able to follow moving groups of men through treacherous terrain. A simpatico formed, with the dogs being an available source of food when pickings got thin.


Interstingly enough the earliest recorded possible domesticated canine come from a neanderthal site in spain and is about 125K years old.



[edit on 21-5-2009 by punkinworks09]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join