Proof of Neanderthal and Human interbreeding, and Oh they wore make up too!!!!

G'day ATS!

I found two articles regarding our long lost cousins the Neanderthals, I thought I'd post them together for a bit of fun!

Neanderthal 'make-up' discovered

Scientists claim to have the first persuasive evidence that Neanderthals wore "body paint" 50,000 years ago.

The team report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that shells containing pigment residues were Neanderthal make-up containers.

Scientists unearthed the shells at two archaeological sites in the Murcia province of southern Spain.

The team says its find buries "the view of Neanderthals as half-wits" and shows they were capable of symbolic thinking.

Now if that were the case, I think it does "paint" (sorry) them in a different light.

I wonder how they know that it wasn't intended for rock art??

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce3f86275200.jpg[/atsimg]
The shells were coated with residues of mixed pigments

The article leads onto another story, but I will give another source so I can quote some more! (Sneaky eh!)

30,000-Year-Old Child's Teeth Shed New Light on Human Evolution

The teeth of a 30,000-year-old child are shedding new light on the evolution of modern humans, thanks to research from the University of Bristol published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The teeth are part of the remarkably complete remains of a child found in the Abrigo do Lagar Velho, Portugal and excavated in 1998-9 under the leadership of Professor João Zilhão of the University of Bristol. Classified as a modern human with Neanderthal ancestry, the child raises controversial questions about how extensively Neanderthals and modern human groups of African descent interbred when they came into contact in Europe.

They found that, for a given stage of development of the cheek teeth, the front teeth were relatively delayed in their degree of formation. Moreover, the front teeth had a greater volume of dentin and pulp but proportionally less enamel than the teeth of recent humans.

The teeth of the Lagar Velho child thus fit the pattern evident in the preceding Neanderthals, and contrast with the teeth of later Pleistocene (12,000-year-old) humans and living modern humans.

Cool, of course it there could be other reasons for having "Neanderthal" teeth, but these guys seem pretty convinced.

So there we have it ATS, Humans did have sex with Neanderthals, and wore make up!

Your view on Neanderthals HAS to be markedly different from about five minutes ago surely???

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1dec191244a7.jpg[/atsimg]

HOW ABOUT NOW!??!

All the best ATS! Kiwifoot!





[edit on 9-1-2010 by kiwifoot]

@ the picture

We all knew they were ugly creatures, i guess make-up was used to fit in the the modern human.

nice find, s&f.

So that's why man started to weave fishnets?

So THAT'S how the state of NC came to be! I am so wrong, but it's true...

I'd like to know how these 'scientists' come up with these stories- pull them out of a hat? Think them up? Until they have proof (like a frozen body in the tundra somewhere) of a painted neanderthal... I am going to believe that this theory was (excuse the pun) 'made up'.

Oh, that is precious! funny too. I have long wondered about the fate of neanderthal and whether or not they interbred with modern humans. After reading Jean Auels Clan of the cave bear series I was inclined to think that perhaps they did interbreed, though not on a large scale. Like the character Ayla in the books, perhaps orphaned young of one species were adopted into the clans of the others.
I've never thought the Neanderthals to be dumb lummoxes, just different. I think they just lost the race for space and were basically bred out of existentence. Perhaps they were'nt as adaptable as modern humans and were unable to make changes in their living patterns. The return of the ice sheets probably was the mitigating factor in their finally going extinct. Great article, thanks.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Asktheanimals]

So there we have it ATS, Humans did have sex with Neanderthals, and wore make up!

Any idea, did the humans tried to have sex with the Neanderthals before wearing any make-up and failed to have sex? And after putting on some make-up succeeded to score with the Neanderthals

I love reading new Neanderthal news!

The body paint probably doesn't surprise many of the experts, but just adds to the slowly growing body of information we have. It's growing more and more evident that whatever we were doing...they could do too.

There's a growing suspicion they were capable of complex language (Foxp2). We know that they looked after the sick and the dying. They supported others with handicaps and even had a concept of an afterlife. We know this from the Neanderthal remains at the Shanidar Caves. There's evidence that they buried their dead with flowers. Kinda touching huh?

EDIT to add: I'm not sure about the cross breeding. Although it's well known that human males will stick their penises in anything from the inanimate (Man with genitals in pipe cut free) to the animate...chicken!! or horse AND donkey....scientists have found no evidence in our genome of Neanderthals.

Sorry to lower the tone at ATS

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Kandinsky]

Originally posted by ugie1028

@ the picture

We all knew they were ugly creatures, i guess make-up was used to fit in the the modern human.

nice find, s&f.

Current understandings show them as looking not that much different from what our ancestors did.

It was the Victortians that started the view of neanderthals being slow and stupid, just like all the silly ideas they startted its still believed today.

With any luck one day science will completly shead these ideas for ones that are supported by evidence.


edit to add: Ugly or not if they interbread with homosapiens someone must have found them atractive


[edit on 9-1-2010 by jpmail]

[edit on 9-1-2010 by jpmail]

Well, it is known that Neanderthals were very similar to modern humans ("modern humans" meaning the homo sapiens of 30,000 years ago), and since our modern human ancestors were just like us, I don't find it too surprising that they wore make-up.

The modern humans (Homo sapiens) of 30,000 years ago were exactly like us (i.e., we have basically the same brain), and it would seem likely that Neanderthals shared many of the same qualities of Homo sapien, because they were closely related.


[edit on 1/9/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

So they find some shells with pigments on them and they automatically deduce that the pigments were "make-up"? Didn't Neanderthals make cave drawings that required the use of pigments? How do they even know that the pigments were used as face paint?

Also, even if it was used for face paint, it may not necessarily have been for beautifying purposes. Indians wore face paint when going into battle. Several peoples painted themselves for ritual events that had nothing to do with pulchritude.

I never understood why people think that homosapiens and neanderthal never mated. Did the scientist never go to a party in college and watch guys smashed out of their minds hit on anything that moves? I can see either a Homosapiens or Neanderthal is out foraging, ends up eating some mushrooms. Next thing he knows, he is in his cave telling his cavemate how he scored and he believed she was HOT.

I have gone into it on other threads in depth. Briefly.

Much new thinking by advanced anthropologists on Neanderthal. Much of what has been accepted for decades is a vestige of earlier thinking - i.e. Neanderthal man ugly, stupid, inferior, etc.

Neanaderthal man was actually Homo Sapiens just like his contemporary Cro-magnon Man. A number of skulls and skeletons found in Spain and Eastern Europe with characterstic of both indicate hybridization. The two strains of early humanity, separated by geography for the better part of a million years were genetically compatible, capable of mating and producing health offspring.

Hard for many to accept, modern man, at least a few million Europeans and residents of the Middle East and North Africa, have Neanderthal inheritence.
Their ancestor actually had a slightly larger brain case, was into mysticism and religion earlier, and may have been te intellectual of the family. Cro-magnon man discovered refined tooling earlier and was more aggressive - possibly accounting for his predominance when the two strains competed in the same territories.

The make-up speculation is silly btw. A bad reporter trying for something sensational. Early men all probably used dyes and animal skins as ornamentation. Rarely do these organic artifacts survive.


M


[edit on 9-1-2010 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by thinline
I never understood why people think that homosapiens and neanderthal never mated. Did the scientist never go to a party in college and watch guys smashed out of their minds hit on anything that moves? I can see either a Homosapiens or Neanderthal is out foraging, ends up eating some mushrooms. Next thing he knows, he is in his cave telling his cavemate how he scored and he believed she was HOT.

The question isn't whether or not they had sex with each other. The question is whether or not that union could produce fertile offspring. If they were two entirely different species, then they could not produce fertile offspring together. If they were variations of the same species, then they could.

For example: horses and donkeys are different species, but you could mate a horse with a donkey and get a mule. HOWEVER -- and this is important -- the mule is not fertile, meaning two mules can't mate and make another mule.

What this means for the Neanderthals is this: even if the Mordern Humans and Neanderthals mated -- and even if that union produced offspring, that offspring would not be able to contribute any genetic information to new generations...which means that there may not be any Neanderthal genetic material in Modern Humans today.

However, like I said, if Modern Humans and Neanderthals were both different variations of the same species, then they could have interbred -- i.e., Neanderthal genetic code could be inside all of us.

[edit on 1/9/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Interesting posts. The painted Neanderthal is funny but silly as commented on by some. I see no harm in humor. The question of interbreeding will be answered by indepth studies of the genomes of the 2 species and increasingly better DNA analysis tools. Until then a scientific answer will have to wait.

The case for a burka,OMG. star & flag for you mate

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I never understood why people think that homosapiens and neanderthal never mated. Did the scientist never go to a party in college and watch guys smashed out of their minds hit on anything that moves? I can see either a Homosapiens or Neanderthal is out foraging, ends up eating some mushrooms. Next thing he knows, he is in his cave telling his cavemate how he scored and he believed she was HOT.

The question isn't whether or not they had sex with each other. The question is whether or not that union could produce fertile offspring. If they were two entirely different species, then they could not produce fertile offspring together. If they were variations of the same species, then they could.

For example: horses and donkeys are different species, but you could mate a horse with a donkey and get a mule. HOWEVER -- and this is important -- the mule is not fertile, meaning two mules can't mate and make another mule.

What this means for the Neanderthals is this: even if the Mordern Humans and Neanderthals mated -- and even if that union produced offspring, that offspring would not be able to contribute any genetic information to new generations...which means that there may not be any Neanderthal genetic material in Modern Humans today.

However, like I said, if Modern Humans and Neanderthals were both different variations of the same species, then they could have interbred

Still disputed by some, Neanderthal Man was Homo Sapiens. And there has long been confusion with the much earlier Classical Neanderthal and the later refined version that was around as little as 20,000 years ago. This later variant is probably absorbed in modern man.

There are many problems in these discussions. The abuse of the term species. Species cannot interbreed, but there are compatible sub-species.
Neanderthal Man and Cro-magnon mating is not exactly analogous to horses and donkey, a particularly aberrant example anyway. Maybe closer to wolves and dogs.

More complex than that, but you get the picture.

OK, you'll rarely get a complete picture solely from excavated artifacts, so a degree of educated guessing is always required in archaeology.

But claiming history will have to be re-written based and a few scallop shells with pigment residue, and guesswork and assumption is pushing it.

The article doesn't state whether these pigments were mineral or vegetable or animal in origin.

What other common reasons could there be for pigments in the shells?

Ceremonial reasons.

This in itself could take up the whole page..painting the dead/death rites, hunting party paint, leadership or tribal colours, coming of age paint, paint for first hunting kill, paint to indicate rank or status, partnership or family unit displays and so on.

Practical reasons.

Used to ward off insects and mites and skin burrowing pests, used to mask human scent or for camouflage when hunting, sunscreen, in certain combinations may have been used medicinally as an antiseptic or purgative and so on, may even have been used as 'make up' in courtship rituals.

How they can pick any isolated possible use and state it as fact is plain bad science.

and RIGHT NOW we are looking at Homo Sapien / Homo Concientious interbreeding! Indigo/Crystal for the win!

Originally posted by ugie1028

We all knew they were ugly creatures, i guess make-up was used to fit in the the modern human.

That assumes of course that they thought we were better looking than they.

It would be reasonable to assume that they may have actually found us "mildy ugly" in comparison, as it seems pretty common for a species to prefer (in general, pipes, chickens, and donkeys nowithstanding) its own kind.