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.

 

Neanderthal Killing Floor

page: 4
51
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I have read can't remember the source and seen a TV documentary that indicated that Neanderthals had a close range brute force hunting style that was a source of many severe injuries .These injuries were studied by some biologists who concluded that they most resembled injuries suffered by Rodeo Cowboys!
this lead me to conclude that Neanderthals had a culture of competitive bravery in hunting which must have carried into other aspects of their culture as a pervasive mindset. The study had an overall percentage of broken bone injuries that began very early in life.It was rare to find any Neanderthal remains besides infants that not show healed broken bone injuries.

conclusion..Neanderthals lived short brutal lives
they are not thought to have buried women,so I conclude that they had a level of use of women something like what is prevalent in most of Africa today rape and murder of women seeming to be something of a cultural imperative. Same apparently with Neanderthals

it is known that Neanderthals were never numerous even in the pre Homo Sapien days could this set of cultural dynamics be the reason?


at any rate they were far from 'cuddly' but certainly a fascinating species
we may never know the real Neanderthal but political correctness or fads in scientific interpretation obscure or suppress the evidence that we do find

it as unrealistic to paint Neanderthals as poor victims of human savagery as the other way around
I believe that the Neanderthals were in some way as responsible for their own extinction as we were
Just my two cents




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I'd imagine, what with humans hunting you for rape, your homes, and meat, that Neanderthal desperation grew exponentially. They copied a lot of stuff from us. Including war.


Gorman, I was responding to this post. You clearly state points you now seem to be saying are not native to 'humans'. You then ask me to read up on points you use to refute yourself - I'm confused as to what your original post meant. You have since stated that yes, Neanderthals quite possibly would have claimed territory where they could. You then stated that you have no evidence to show that Neanderthals did not rape their own species or any other, and I questioned whether war as in a concept we would recognise as such was unknown to Neanderthals but known to Homo Sapien.

Please trust me, I'm not waving a big Homo Sapien flag and saying we are the best thing ever, just that if such points are made, are they made as fact or cynical comment.... if so, surely we should have a way of flagging them as such.

Please. read up on it



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
I have read can't remember the source and seen a TV documentary that indicated that Neanderthals had a close range brute force hunting style that was a source of many severe injuries .These injuries were studied by some biologists who concluded that they most resembled injuries suffered by Rodeo Cowboys!
this lead me to conclude that Neanderthals had a culture of competitive bravery in hunting which must have carried into other aspects of their culture as a pervasive mindset. The study had an overall percentage of broken bone injuries that began very early in life.It was rare to find any Neanderthal remains besides infants that not show healed broken bone injuries.

conclusion..Neanderthals lived short brutal lives
they are not thought to have buried women,so I conclude that they had a level of use of women something like what is prevalent in most of Africa today rape and murder of women seeming to be something of a cultural imperative. Same apparently with Neanderthals

it is known that Neanderthals were never numerous even in the pre Homo Sapien days could this set of cultural dynamics be the reason?


at any rate they were far from 'cuddly' but certainly a fascinating species
we may never know the real Neanderthal but political correctness or fads in scientific interpretation obscure or suppress the evidence that we do find

it as unrealistic to paint Neanderthals as poor victims of human savagery as the other way around
I believe that the Neanderthals were in some way as responsible for their own extinction as we were
Just my two cents





MrsBlonde, good points. All I will comment on is the injuries/deaths thought to have been through their hunting style. Neanderthal did not have the capability of speech to the complexity of Homo Sapien as their larynx did not develop in the same way. It's highly possible that meant communication between hunters was extremely limited causing all sorts of mishaps. Can't prove, none of us can, but it is a distinct possiblility when your speech capability doesn't allow you to shout 'No, my left is your right!' (or something a little like that
)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


I'm saying that Neanderthals were capable of anything animal can do. Rape and killing and pillaging is one thing animals are capable of doing. I am also saying that humans are unique due to Behavioral modernity. A trait scientist says began 50,000 years ago and is one of the things that set us aside from the rest. Some of the things listed as part of those traits were likely capable of being done by Neanderthals, but highly unlikely started by them. The reason being that they only show up in humans.

To summarize, again, Neanderthals had am environmental niche that they were good at. They did not advance on their own past what homo erectus had created. When humans entered the area, they needed homes. It was an ice age. The environment had no niche for them. So humans made one. They began taking the homes and niche that Neanderthals had. It is at this time that the artifacts left behind by them change. Like a sudden event happened. They stopped burying their dead properly, they stopped using the tools they had and started using the tools humans had, they changed their entire life style and culture to try and compete with the new species, us. The younger the artifacts are, the more westward they become. Implying they left wherever humans were. They were running. They were desperate. This is also when more cases of cannibalism became apparent, and more desperation became evident. Again, leading no other deduction than that they were running away from humans. The presence of hybrid skeletons with this evidence cannot be that humans peacefully married Neanderthals. It can only mean that humans raped Neanderthals, and the children and wives were taken by humans. Or, exiled, and humans were the only ones willing to accept them. While it is very likely the rare peaceful interbreeding occurred,evidence points to rape being far more likely. We do not find hybrids with Neanderthals. We find them with humans, often in caves that used to be Neanderthal property. Please do not imagine armies of Neanderthals and humans fighting each other. And please do not imagine some strict social code that both followed. Everything that can be imagined likely happened. 20,000 years is more than enough to allow for anything reasonably possible. It is likely that anything reasonably possible, even a 3 way with 2 Neanderthals and a human, likely happened in those 20,000 years. Although there is no evidence, 20,000 years of interaction is more than enough time for such things to have happened. We speak of generalizations here. What the evidence points to most likely having happened. You have to realize, everything in written history took place in the course of some 8,000-10,000 years. This is 20,000 years. More than enough for the whole of history to repeat itself twice. So anything imaginable that reasonably could have happened, very likely, happened.

In ergo, the evidence posted here and before points to what I said being the most likely timeline.

Eventually, Neanderthals were pushed to Spain, where they had no where else to go. The rest of them were absorbed into humanity, killed off, or eaten by each other. The ice age was ending, species were going extinct left and right, and there simply was no room for 2 human species. The better one survived. Us. And it was done though genocide, out competing, stealing, and everything else that happens in nature.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Since we are kind of providing supposition, let me throw mine out there....


....it has been discussed that the Neandertals were mostly redheaded creatures. It has also been pointed out that their "stronghold" was the Iberian Peninsula and the British Isle's. One map I saw had their stronghold centered in Ireland.

I have always noticed that many Irish have very pronounced brows, and red hair. When I see Kelly O'Donnell, I think "Geico".

Perhaps they didn't die out. Perhaps it was an absorption? I know..."they" say that we don't have Neandertal DNA....but how expansive is the data set that made that determination?

What if red hair were a Neandertal trait?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


We do though. Some northern Europeans have some Neanderthal genes in them. It was proven a ways back:

www.time.com...

However, they were not heavily in England. It was merely a place they were in for some time. And due to their contact with humans, their tools got pretty good.

However, their hotbed was not really anywhere. They came and went throughout their time, eventually the last of them were in Spain, dead and gone as quickly as they came.

edit on 23-12-2010 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
something wicked! thanks for the response! I'm not so sure what to make of Neanderthal speech capability,wolves hunt together and have flawless non verbal communication ! The Kung of Africa speak a very nuanced language of clicks and tones and are the greatest hunters and trackers on the planet! I conclude that I can't say with any certainty what the Neanderthals could communicate to each other ,that's on of the key mysteries associated with them ..wouldn't we all like to know!

they were something like 7 times stronger on average than HomoSapiens! whatever else thay may have been like it's for sure that they depended on that strength in hunting and I suspect many other areas of their lives


BFT ,I see where you're going with that but it all gets muddied up with the discovery that gene for red in Neanderthals is not the same one as in HomoSapiens! remember Orangutans are red haired also
www.sciencedaily.com...
Gorman great thread!!



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Who says "we don't have Neanderthal DNA" ??? Because we most certainly do.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

I theorize that a combination of cross-breeding between Neanderthals and Humans, coupled with territorial battles are what eventually led to the disappearance of Neanderthals. I think there are at least 2 different types of extinction. Total disappearance (dinosaurs) and phasing out (Neanderthals). There is currently fear that polar bears may be "phased out" of existence due to cross breeding with other bears.

Source
edit on 12/23/2010 by OrphenFire because: Source for polar bear story



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
....it has been discussed that the Neandertals were mostly redheaded creatures. It has also been pointed out that their "stronghold" was the Iberian Peninsula and the British Isle's. One map I saw had their stronghold centered in Ireland.


I donno, Tex...I'm lookin' at at your avatar and thinkin' you might look a little closer to home. Christmas Greetings to all Primates, Texans included.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
They appear to look like hearty stock. I suppose it was the superior brain of the Homo Sapien that caused the Neanderthal extinction.

But if the Neanderthal were to have survived to this day, could you imagine the type of racial bias they would be faced with in today's society? Like a Geico commercial I suppose.....


Neanderthal's had bigger and heavier brains then homo sapiens, homo sapiens were not as superior as you think. And there blood line did survive, the pic's of the op I seen more then a couple of people in modern times that would most likely have some Neanderthal in there gene pool.

What a lot of people seem to forget is that the landscape and nature determines a lot on whether a species survives and thrives or if not, its pretty hard surviving in cold environments especially for that time period, it's not like you can sustain yourself by eating snow. So creatures adapt or die even to the point of changing it's body entirely such as there size, even big creatures such as elephants, if isolated on a island for generations and generations, would adapt and shrink for survival purposes, if there is a habitat for sustaining such things.
en.wikipedia.org...

But these Neanderthals were adapted for the cold, which they were good in surviving in and hunting in. But living in such places is not a easy life, and would wear and tear on you, and it also determines the numbers of the population that can be in existence at any one time, and also were and what you do with your time and energy, which would of been spent mostly hunting or resting, no time for any inventing or anything else basically. So the only real disadvantages they had was due to numbers, and the landscape of were they lived. So it's more like blind luck of being in the right place and right time that determines survival and thrivel to a great degree. Homo sapiens were in a way better and more plentiful environment, and more numerous that's why they moved up into Europe and such they were expanding, and the Neanderthals in Europe were the opposite. They got adapted to a much harsher and colder environment and when they meet they were not in the best shape. The rest is just human nature both homo sapiens or Neanderthal's there probably was fighting and mating and all that other stuff that would happen in such situations or in any situations of when groups of humans meet.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 


Would just like to point out that bigger brains are good, yes. But it's also the amount of wrinkles in the brain, along with ratio of brain-size to body mass. I'm not arguing that Neanderthals were stupid or less intelligent, just that brain size alone doesn't necessarily correlate to intelligence.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
....it has been discussed that the Neandertals were mostly redheaded creatures. It has also been pointed out that their "stronghold" was the Iberian Peninsula and the British Isle's. One map I saw had their stronghold centered in Ireland.


I donno, Tex...I'm lookin' at at your avatar and thinkin' you might look a little closer to home. Christmas Greetings to all Primates, Texans included.


It must be my Hungarian stock.

But my avatar looks more like the women from "back home" than the men!!! She has such a fetching smile, doesn't she?
edit on 23-12-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
It isn't the first time Neanderthal bones have been found with signs of cannibalism. They've been found often and before we start shaking our heads at the primitive ignorance of a species that eats itself...we did too. What catches my imagination is why? Why did they use cannibalism? These were physically strong individuals and capable of foraging or hunting. They had spears, hand axes and sharp tools, if they hit someone with a rock, they'd know about it.


Meat is meat. The Neanderthals - and other humans in similar environments - subsist primarily on protein diets. And a dead person does not need all the flesh that is clinging to their bones. Nor do they have any use for the high-nutrient, high-fat marrow in those bones, either. Why let that much food go to waste?

Second, if neandertals were anything like the rest of the family tree - and I see no reason they wouldn't be - war was a feature of their society. That tribe over there is encroaching on our turf / we want to encroach on theirs, let's go wipe them out! And once you've killed one, or two, or five of that other tribe... well, again, no sense in letting that meat go to waste, is there? Especially when leaving them to rot might draw wolves. Or bears. Or worst of all, hyenas (apparently a major predator of humans at the time)

It's far from ignorant. It is, in fact, completely practical. And as you note, it was prevalent in our societies, as well - VERY prevalent. Have you ever heard of kuru? It's a sort of prion disease that afflicted necrocannibalistic Fore tribespeople in Papua-New Guinea. Seems that one of the people they prepared around the turn of the century had a prion disease, and it spread from there.

Here's the thing; in your genes, there is probably a particular one that protects you from just that problem. Plenty of Fore people had that gene. Plenty of people worldwide have it. And the wild thing? It's not just one gene. Different populations have different genes that perform the same function - prion infections were apparently common enough that different populations developed different protectiosn against it at different times. What's more is there is evidencethat a population may have had one version, lost it, and then developed another version.

This, combined with all sorts of taboos about cannibalism hint at this practice actually being very common in our past. Common enough that most human populations have genes to protect against a risk who's primary source is cannibalism, common enough that pretty much every culture has rules about the subject.

Why?

Because meat is meat, dead people don't need it, living people do, and humans are a lot easier to take down than a woolly mammoth.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 

And that's the sort of post that makes ATS worth reading.


I had no idea genes could protect anyone from prion diseases.
How common are these genes?
How many different types are there?
What groups have them, in what proportion?
How specific is the protection?
Do the various genes work the same way, or they give different protections?

Don't feel obliged to answer all these. Perhaps you could direct me to a reference I could learn from.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


What about the natural revulsion that humans have to the thought of cannibalism? Where does this arise from?

Or, even more, the natural revulsion we have to dead people (and often, any kind of dead animal)? It is so extreme that people are often disgusted by the site of a robot that is "too human" in appearance.

Another thing I find funny is how we can find our own bodies, when taken out of human context, as repulsive. Or just pimples. Seeing another persons pimple pop is repulsive.

Then again, that can be cultural as well. Odors that can make someone from one culture want to vomit can be seen as preferrable in another culture.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



good questions BFFT! clearly the revulsion toward cannibalism you refer wasn't present in many earlier societies
Neanderthals ,almost the entire South Pacific islands the Aztecs and many other South American tribes and Early Celts all practiced some form of cannibalism
and the bible talks of cannibalistic Giants

so I don't know the answer to your question other than to point out if you eat your own regularly enough you will run out of your own,maybe that is somehow at least part of the reason we have this taboo?

I dunno? I do cannibalism among animals only happens in cases of extreme stress accompanied by forced close contact and starvation,or and this happened to some of my mice ,congenital maddness/pyschopathy!
that last part is my own personnel observation,of my mice



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


First off it is an assumption that Neanderthal is different than modern man.

Since I believe the Bible to be true I would also expect that based upon the accounts of the age of people even after the flood for some time lived several hundred years old.

Also based upon Jack Cuozzo's forensic work as a dentist he has discovered that man's head continues to grow until death. At the points of the brow ridge and jaw area also at the base of the head do to muscle pressure.

So these supposed off shoots are grand parents of old age.

When the Pharaoh meet Jacob he commented upon his old age and Joesph had said

Genesis 47:
[8] And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou?
[9] And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.

Since for some time in the ancient past man lived longer than his body would have shown different signs of aging.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 


interesting ,I dunno that either! I know that even in the ancient past well cared for people Pharaohs Kings and such lived to almost a hundred and at the same time I read somewhere that animals and people only last as long as there teeth do

humans in the past regularly died of wisdom tooth impaction that's 18 to 24

the lucky ones could make it to about fortyish before their teeth started to wear down so with good teeth a person could potentially live indefinitely and I know the Bible says in lots of places" I have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities" ummm...



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Isn't that Cheech Marin in that third picture?

I wonder if he is of Basque decent. The Basque being a major grouping of RH (Rhesus Monkey) negative blood, they certainly do have something unique about them.

We know the Neanderthals painted, possibly had other arts, and of course made tools and weapons, everything else is speculative.

Humans and Neanderthals shared Europe for a very long time. There had to be considerable interaction between the two species. Of course they would have competed against each other, but it is very possible that they had alliances as well.

I always like to throw in an article on the subject.

www.saecularis.com...


European populations of H. neanderthalensis have been traditionally thought to be adapted to a cold environment, and thus may have had problems adapting to a warming environment. This may or may not be the case, although it has been suggested that the difference in cold-adaptation between Neanderthals and H. sapiens may have been minor.

Another possibility has to do with the loss of the Neanderthal's primary hunting territory - forests. The Neanderthals hunted by stabbing their prey with spears (as opposed to throwing the spears at their prey). They were also far less mobile than modern humans. Thus when the forests were gradually replaced by flat lands, the Neanderthals would have had great difficulty hunting. In the open they would not have been able to stalk their prey, their stabbing weapons would have been largely useless, and they - unlike modern humans - could not easily chase their prey.


Researches including Karen L. Steudel of the University of Wisconsin have proposed that because Neanderthals had limbs that were shorter and stockier than modern humans, and because of anatomical differences in their limbs, it is theorized that the primary reason the Neanderthals were not able to survive is related to the fact that they could not run as fast as modern humans, and they would require 30% more energy than modern humans would for running or walking. [15] This would have given modern humans a huge advantage in battle. Other researchers, like Yoel Rak, from Tel-Aviv University, Israel have noted that the fossil records show that Neanderthals pelvises in comparison to modern human pelvises would have made it much harder for Neanderthals to absorb shock and to bounce off from one step to the next, giving modern humans another advantage over Neanderthals in running and walking ability. [16]


I have to wonder, could the warming of Europe lead to rapid evolution in Neanderthals? As the ability to run became more important, than those Neanderthals whose builds would allow them to run faster would have had better chances of survival. How many generations would it take for a slimmer faster Neanderthal race to emerge. Could selective breeding have made the minor changes necessary for Neanderthals to survive in mere centuries?

When it comes to selective breeding, it is a dogs world.

www.sciencedaily.com... 3A+Latest+Science+News%29


Although domestication of dogs began over 14,000 years ago, according to Dr. Joshua Akey, University of Washington (UW) assistant professor of genome sciences, the spectacular diversity among breeds is thought to have originated during the past few centuries through intense artificial selection of and strict breeding for desired characteristics.


If that much diversity could be developed in dogs in a few centuries, than how long would it have taken Neanderthals to evolve from heavy sized hunters who trudge through thick snow to stab their prey into lighter, more nimble hunters who could run faster and chase down their prey. Probably the heavier female Neanderthals could have easily bore children of the lighter homo erectus or homo sapien. If such a change in Neanderthals occurred in a few centuries, than the fossil record would be much harder to find, and identify.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
A whole genome sequence in the Neanderthal genome was produced and analyzed. It suggests that up to 2% of the DNA in the genome of present-day humans outside of Africa originated in Neanderthals, or Neanderthals' ancestors. I don't know, my personal opinion is that they "merged" with the then-present-day (their cousins) humans. It would explain a lot. Especially since we do see many of the physical traits displayed in some modern humans.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join