PDA

View Full Version : The Mystery of the Neanderthals.



mojo
03-05-2008, 07:20 PM
The Mystery of the Neanderthals.

A bit of light reading for my AmKon friends, having trouble sleeping, try this. :)

They were expert toolmakers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1766683.stm), they lived in communal groups and looked after each other, they fashioned clothing to keep warm, they may have developed art/sculptures and they may also have been able to communicate verbally. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071018/sc_nm/neanderthals_speech_dc;_ylt=ArrUEZKfjXw5hI9cgD_OQb 0hANEA) Their brain capacity was as large or larger than ours, they were stronger physically.
Did they become extinct due to competition for resources from modern humans, did they become absorbed genetically with modern man. Their extinction seems to have occured very quickly somewhere between 25,000 - 30,000 years ago.
Neanderthals were basically carnivores, could this have had something to do with their demise, a shortage of game might have meant that they were unable to supplement their diet with flora (fruits/berries etc) unlike our ancestors.

BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1766683.stm)


The discovery suggests the ancient hunter-gatherers made tools by sticking stone heads to wooden handles with glue.



This requires technical competence and puts Neanderthals on an intellectual par with early modern humans,


www.archchannel page 2 (http://www.archchannel.de/main/EN/neandertaler/History/Did_the_Neanderthal_really_extinct_02/index,method=main.html)


The two lived alongside one another in Europe from 40,000 years ago until around 27,000 years ago. But did they also live with one another?



One thing is clear. The creator of the artworks from the late Paleolithic could not have been Neolithic man. So who was it? Surely not the Neanderthal, this ungainly companion? "There is that possibility," says Nicholas Conrad.


www.archchannel page 3 (http://www.archchannel.de/main/EN/neandertaler/History/Did_the_Neanderthal_really_extinct_03/index,method=main.html)


This conclusion, according to Serre, is wrong. "When," he emphasizes, "when there had been a gene flow, then it was presumably small. We can by no means rule out, however, that Neanderthals contributed to the genotype of modern man." And thus is not extinct in a biological sense, but is still present in the nuclei of our cells.


www.archchannel page 4 (http://www.archchannel.de/main/EN/neandertaler/History/Did_the_Neanderthal_really_extinct_04/index,method=main.html)


Stone tools have been discovered during mining for brown coal in eastern Germany that are over 100,000 years old and upon which the remnants of oak bark extract still adhere: A material still used today for tanning leather and making waterproof shoes. The Neanderthals must have developed the technique themselves because modern man was still not yet there.


www.ecotao.com (http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_neand.htm)


These early humans thus lived in the same area as Neanderthals during the same time. From this perspective, humans are NOT the only species that have developed culture, intelligence, language and self-awareness. Neanderthals were skilled
hunters and craftsmen who made tools, used fire, cared for their sick and injured and even had a few symbolic notions, probably with some facility for language.



These heavily built and muscled people had a brain volume of 1200 to 1800 cubic centimetres, equal to and even larger than modern human brains. Neanderthals were much more muscular than are modern humans - bulking about 30 percent more in weight.


Toolmaking (http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/N/neanderthal/survival_kit/toolmaking.html)

archaeology.about.com (http://archaeology.about.com/od/hominidancestors/a/neander_2.htm)

Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Western Asia (http://archaeology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=archaeology&cdn=education&tm=10&gps=110_41_1012_621&f=00&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//karmak.org/archive/2003/01/westasia.htm)


These similarities between young Neanderthals and modern humans indicate that some of the features that distinguished Neanderthals from early modern humans in adulthood may have resulted from behaviors that differentially altered skeletal traits during growth, not from genetic differences. This increases the chances that these two groups belonged to a single species.


A flint object with a striking likeness to a human face may be one of the best examples of art by Neanderthal man ever found, the journal Antiquity reports. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3256228.stm)


"This object shows that art was not born in the brain of Homo sapiens but much earlier in the brains of predecessors like the Neanderthal man and even, no doubt, in Homo erectus.

Neanderthals and humans lived side by side (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10070)

A species that had everything going for it or so it seems, comparable to modern humans at the time.

Was the Neanderthal extinction in the end just bad luck, the encroaching cold, scarce resources, competition from modern humans and the smaller population in comparison all playing a part in their demise? Does Neanderthal man still survive in some small part perhaps within our genome?
Was there some other reason for their extinction?

It is being debated whether these artifacts were actually made by Neanderthal and not Modern man. If they are proven to be Neanderthal they consist of artifacts that convey beauty (ornamentation) and esoteric thinking (hybrid man and lion).

Link 1 (http://www.archchannel.de/main/EN/neandertaler/History/Did_the_Neanderthal_really_extinct_02/index,method=main.html)


An ornamented lion, sculptures of waterfowl, wooly rhinos and wild horses, as well as figures half lion and half man. The pieces are between 30,000 and 36,000 years old

Link 2 (http://donsmaps.com/cavepaintings2.html), with pictures.


If Mousterian civilization is specific to Neandertals in Europe, "the Mask" thus leads us to think that Neandertals were capable of an artistic production more advanced than than anyone suspected until now.
This protofigurine is a flint improved by Mousterians to accentuate the appearance of a face which the stone offered

Washington State University (http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/neander/neander-d.html)


The deceased was buried in a fetal position with tools and food; a bear skull lies at the edge of the grave. Flower pollen found in the grave suggests that medicinal plants were scattered over the body as well. These practices obviously suggest complex beliefs and rituals.


The fact that the individual with an injury this severe survived into a relatively advanced age implies the existence of a complex social life in which other group members would have shared food and life-supporting tasks. This individual must have contributed something other than physical strength to the social group in which he lived.

Their burial practices also suggest a belief in an afterlife hence tools and food buried with the deceased. Not the rituals of a species that would be unable to understand the concept of beauty, grief, love imo.

Some researchers believe they were able to interbreed. David Serre of the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology (EVA) says this (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/full/nature05336.html)


"when there had been a gene flow, then it was presumably small. We can by no means rule out, however, that Neanderthals contributed to the genotype of modern man."

They survived through at least 2 ice ages and other cold phases, and flourished in the warmer phases in between, moving north when the ice retreated and then moving south again during cold snaps. Though it seems that after each ice age their population density decreased, so that could have played a part in their downfall.

And then there is our own desciptions of how Neandertals would have appeared as slouching, hairy, knuckle scraping apes. That is not the case. Yes they were shorter, broader built physically with the sloping brow but they were not all that dissimilar in appearance to Homo Sapiens at that time.

Washington State University (http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/neander/neander-e.html)


The painting at left illustrates popular prejudices and misconceptions about early humans given expression in the work of French paleontologist Marcellin Boule, who based his 1911 study of the Neanderthals on an individual who, as it turned out, was badly deformed by arthritis. Note the bent-kneed stance suggesting an imperfect or only partly erect posture, the head set forward on the spine much like that of a chimp or gorilla, and the clumsy, extremely hairy bodies.

Neandertals Hunted as Well as Humans, Study Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0125_060125_neanderthal.html)


"These data are joining an increasing body of evidence that Neanderthal extinction was not due to any lack of ability to hunt," said John Shea, an archaeologist at Stony Brook University on Long Island, New York.
"There was no difference between what Neanderthals and modern humans could do [as hunters]," said Shea, who was not involved in the study. "Both of them were wolves with knives."

Theres not been a lot of Neandertal skeletons found . A lot of the really interesting cave sites were found over 100 years ago and not handled in a very professional manner at the time by amateurs, meaning layers were mixed up in the initial digging, see "Vogelherd skull" for evidence of this. Some sites were even destroyed during the second world war by allied bombing. Unfortunately relying on finding Neandertal and Homo Saps skeletons or artifacts together is going to be difficult. but there is circumstantial evidence.

Link (http://www.archchannel.de/main/EN/neandertaler/History/Did_the_Neanderthal_really_extinct_03/index,method=main.html)


When we plot on a map the discovery sites of the last Neanderthals together with the first modern man, we then see that both lived for many thousands of years together in the same region, at the latest 40,000 years ago."

Did they have contact with one another? As soon as one becomes conscious of the period of time involved, it is perhaps more obvious to ask, "Could they have avoided encounters?" They roamed, lived, hunted and gathered in the same sphere for at least 10,000 years. This is a timeframe that, calculated from today, stretches back further than construction of the pyramids in Egypt. Of course they encountered each other. What is missing, however, is irrefutable evidence of relation- ships between the two races


St. Césaire in France.

Link (http://archaeology.about.com/od/sterms/g/stcesaire.htm)


Discovered by French archaeologist François Lévêque in 1979, the site contained a nearly complete Neanderthal skull, and a Châtelperronian tool kit, which is normally associated with Homo sapiens sapiens, not Neanderthal. It is considered evidence of co-existence of Homo sapiens and Neanderthalensis, a coexistence that doesn't seem to have been consistently pleasant.

Also this from a cave site in croatia, Vindija Cave.

Link (http://archaeology.about.com/od/vterms/g/vindija.htm)


there are four to five stratigraphically separated hominin levels at Vindija Cave associated with humans and Neanderthals.

There are some other cave sites you can check out on archaeology.about.com.

I dont think we can rule out genetic mixing just because we dont have skeletons lying on top of each other. :D

Some more interesting articles that have turned up lately suggesting that the time we co existed with Neandertals was not as long as previously thought and why we should try to understand what happened to them.

The Scariest Thing about Neanderthals (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071103/sc_livescience/thescariestthingaboutneanderthals;_ylt=Amb2HBdsPJ_ KDvi3M7ewuqWs0NUE)


And so why have these interesting people been relegated to second-class citizen status?

Because they threaten us.

Neanderthals are chronologically the closest, and the most familiar, example that we have of our kind disappearing off the face of the Earth, and that means we can go too.


Neanderthals scare us because they are ghosts from the past, a few with wizardly Weasley hair and a sprinkle of freckles, and they are now turned in our direction whispering, "You're not so unique. Watch out."


link (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060508_human_evolution_02.jpg&cap=The+timeline+of+human+evolution+is+long+and+co ntroversial,+with+significant+gaps.+Experts+do+not +agree+on+many+of+the+start+and+end+points+of+vari o)

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o223/mojo4sale/060508_human_evolution_02.jpg

Perhaps they never met. (http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060508_human_evolution.html)


The number of years that modern humans are thought to have overlapped with Neanderthals in Europe is shrinking fast, and some scientists now say that figure could drop to zero.


Anthropologists also disagree on whether modern humans and Neanderthals are the same species and interbred.
And now, some scientists dispute whether they lived side-by-side at all in Europe.


The overlap figure shrank in February with new research by Paul Mellars of Cambridge University based on improved carbon-14 dating to show that modern humans started encroaching from Israel upon Neanderthal territory in the Balkans 3,000 years sooner than previously thought. This rate suggests Neanderthals succumbed sooner to big climate shifts or competition from modern humans for resources and that they might have overlapped for only 1,000 years at sites in western France.

Article on Mellars research (http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060222_neanderthals.html)


"This study suggests that the period of potential interaction was short, and also favors the idea that the impact of the newcomers was indeed a significant factor in the demise of the Neanderthals, something which has been disputed recently,'' said Stringer.

Related link on Aurignacian culture. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian)


Aurignacian is the name of a culture of the Upper Palaeolithic located in Europe and southwest Asia. It dates to between 32,000 and 26,000 BC. The name originates from the type site of Aurignac in the Haute Garonne area of France. The Aurignacian culture is considered by some archaeologists to have co-existed with the Périgordian culture of tool making.

What we are learning is that what was true last week may no longer be true this week.
I think there is still a lot more to come.

Maybe women are to blame.

Stone Age feminism?]
Females joining hunt may explain Neanderthals' end (http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/11/10/stone_age_feminism/)


But a recent study introduces another explanation: Stone Age feminism. Among Neanderthals, hunting big beasts was women's work as well as men's, so it's a safe bet that female hunters got stomped, gored, and worse with appalling frequency. And a high casualty rate among fertile women - the vital "reproductive core" of a tiny population - could well have meant demographic disaster for a species already struggling to survive among monster bears, yellow-fanged hyenas, and cunning Homo sapien newcomers.


Just joking ladies. :D

Page 2 (http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/11/10/stone_age_feminism/?page=2)


"All elements of [Neanderthal] society appear to have been involved in the main subsistence pursuit" of hunting large animals, Kuhn said. "There's not much evidence of classic female roles.
"Putting the reproductive core of the population - pregnant women, mothers of infants, children themselves - at such danger could have put Neanderthals as a whole at serious demographic disadvantage," he said.
Not only would women suffer casualties, Kuhn said, their full participation in the hunt would mean they were not harvesting wild grains and other foods that could sustain their roving bands when game was scarce.


Makes sense. Not something i would have thought of.

Here's a slightly different slant.

Hyperphysics (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/starlog/cygx3.html)


But its most unique aspect is the production of anomalous cosmic ray events in a proton decay detector deep in Minnesota's Soudran iron mine. These events have defied analysis and have led to questions about whether Cygnus X-3 is a standard neutron star or perhaps something more exotic, like a star made of quarks. Cygnus X-3 is a compact object in a binary system which is pulling in a stream of gas from an ordinary star companion.


But no known particles can produce such events! Muons themselves are too short-lived to have traveled 37,000 light years so they must be secondary. The particles must be neutral to arrive with that precise directionality. They must be traveling at the same speed, essentially the speed of light, and there are no reasonable candidates for such a particle.

link (http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/thecygnusmystery.htm), this is a link to a book by Andrew Collins, i am in no way advertising this book, merely posting these excerpts to promote some discussion. :)


COSMIC RAYS AND THE CYGNUS MYSTERY
Did Cosmic Radiation change evolution and kick-start religion?



What caused this sudden leap forward? The Cygnus Mystery proposes that it was a dramatic rise in cosmic rays reaching Earth - and provides evidence that the rays, which left subatomic traces in those same deep caves, emanated from a binary star system known as Cygnus X-3. These findings, Collins explains, challenged the certainties of the scientific establishment - until, in 2005, a U.S. think tank went public with its own conviction that a binary system producing powerful jets of cosmic rays triggered a rapid acceleration in human evolution during the last Ice Age.

I have a couple of query's regarding this but.... could a cosmic event have determined the demise of the Neandertals and the rise of Homo Sapiens?

40,000-year-old Skull Shows Both Modern Human And Neandertal Traits
(http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/4/1165)


Humans continued to evolve significantly long after they were established in Europe, and interbred with Neandertals as they settled across the continent, according to new research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) USA.



By comparing it with other skulls, Professor Zilhao and colleagues found that Oase 2 had the same proportions as modern human crania and shared a number of modern human and/or non-Neandertal features.
However, there were some important differences: apparently independent features that are, at best, unusual for a modern human. These included frontal flattening, a fairly large juxtamastoid eminence and exceptionally large upper molars with unusual size progression which are found principally among the Neandertals.


Related link (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/4/1165)


www.sciencedaily.com (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061103083616.htm)


A reexamination of ancient human bones from Romania reveals more evidence that humans and Neandertals interbred.


There just seems to be so many alternate theory's from the scholars, perhaps we may never know the full story.

Heres some new research that suggests that they died out due to the fact they were not able to make warm clothes during the last glacial maximum. Problem i have with this is that some Neandertal fossils and artifacts have been found after this period, unless these were just from the last remnants of the Neandertal population?

Neanderthals Stitched Too Little Too Late (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/03/neanderthal-clothes.html?dcitc=w19-502-ak-0000)


Neanderthals probably froze to death in the last ice age because rapid climate change caught them by surprise without the tools needed to make warm clothes, finds new research.
Ian Gilligan, a postgraduate researcher from the Australian National University argues his case in the current issue of the journal World Archaeology. By the time some Neanderthals developed sewing tools it was too little too late, said Gilligan.

Page 2 (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/03/neanderthal-clothes-02.html)

A 40000 year old tooth found in Southern Greece has experts now believing that Neandertals were much wider travelled than previously thought.
www.archaeologynews.org (http://www.archaeologynews.org/story.asp?ID=261609&Title=Ancient%20tooth%20suggests%20Neanderthals%20 were%20more%20mobile)


Analysis of a 40,000-year-old tooth found in southern Greece suggests Neanderthals were more mobile than once believed, paleontologists and the Greek Culture Ministry said Friday.
Analysis of the tooth — part of the first and only Neanderthal remains found in Greece — showed the ancient human to whom it belonged had spent at least part of its life away from the area where it died.



"Our findings prove that their mobility was significant and that their settlement networks were broader and more organized than we believed," she said.
Given that Neanderthals also coexisted with modern man in some parts of Europe, "one could presume that this mobility would facilitate the contacts of the two populations on a cultural and, perhaps, on a biological level."


Does that rule out one of the proposed reasons for their demise, that they weren't able to hunt as widely as Cro Magnon.

Did Neandertal die off because of cannibalism and transmissible spongiform encephalopathies?
(http://anthropology.net/2008/02/29/did-neandertal-die-off-because-of-cannibalism-and-transmissible-spongiform-encephalopathies/)


TSEs are also known as prion diseases, a communicable disease where the infectious agent is a malformed protein that replicates by imprinting and transforming other proteins. Most TSEs manifest in the host’s neurological tissues because he or she ate infected nervous tissue. Ultimately, the host’s tissues degenerate and lead to serious problems, most often death. In anthropology, one form of TSEs has been well documented, the spread and eradication of kuru in the Fore from Papua New Guinea.


Links to the paper are on this page as well as information about the author and other related topics. You need to register to view the full article but it is free or you can just read the summary.

Maybe the Neandertals are the archetype Zombie, brainsss...brainssss.
If they did in fact have larger brains than us the reason may have been so that they could feed the whole family. :D

Article: dsc.discovery.com/news (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/27/neanderthal-cannibalism.html)

Its one of the truly great mystery's that may never be solved.

mojo

Firestar
03-10-2008, 08:09 AM
Light reading? For the love of god Mojo it will take me all day to read all that!
Fabulous post my mate.
Truly.

mojo
03-10-2008, 09:48 AM
:lol: i do tend to get carried away sometimes when im researching stuff.

My bad.

Firestar
03-10-2008, 12:14 PM
Not a bad thing Mojo to carried away in doing research. It's only a bad thing if you get carried away on a night on the town!

mojo
03-10-2008, 12:53 PM
Not a bad thing Mojo to carried away in doing research. It's only a bad thing if you get carried away on a night on the town!

Hell i do both. haha.

But the disappearance of the neanderthals really is one of the great anthrpological mystery's, so many differing theory's, and thats without addressing the alternative ones.
ie alien intervention, ancient lost civilization etc.

Firestar
03-10-2008, 02:32 PM
I have to agree with you there. However, I have never been a big fan of carbon dating..so for starters I think the time lines are WAY off.
Dirus would be a great one to debate this with you if he wasn't working.
My jury is still out. I thought of perhaps some disease that swept though taking only the neanderthals . That combined with a war between them and others, it wouldn't take very long , perhaps a generation, to wipe them all out. Of course Iam giving all the credit to
more modern man here for that.Which of course really doesn't make sense comparing body size and brain size THEY should have dominated us.
Back to square one.
Thanks for starting the gears churning again.

Yo Mama
03-10-2008, 08:29 PM
Really interesting post, mojo. If I was feeling better, I might do some postulating myself, but I am under the weather. Again.

vckums
04-07-2008, 01:54 AM
Wow! Awesome info Mojo. As a kid I hated watching anything that had to do with science etc. I wanted to be outside playing. Now I want to watch the science channel, discovery channel etc and learn about all kinds of stuff.

mojo
04-19-2008, 08:59 PM
languageevolution.wordpress.com (http://languageevolution.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/hear-a-neanderthal-talk-and-other-interesting-neanderthal-language-rumblings/)


hanks to a talk by D’Errico at Evolang (post upcoming) I do believe that Neanderthals had some sort of fairly sophisticated vocal communication, but this based on the archeological record rather than the presence/absence of FOXP2. As many commentators noted at the time, the presence of FOXP2 is not proof of language. Firstly, FOXP2 is by no means the sole gene responsible for language. Secondly, the role of FOXP2 in producing language is far from clear, another paper last year found similar adaptive variation in echolocating bats and suggested it might more likely be a gene for co-ordinating orofacial movement. Certainly FOXP2 is a gene whose main role is the activation/deactivation of other genes.


Go to this link to download wav. file of what a neandertal sounded like. :lol: ehh.

http://media.newscientist.com/data/imag ... 3672A1.wav (http://media.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/dn13672A1.wav)

No they do not sound like Australians. :)

Martian Exile
04-20-2008, 08:57 AM
Mojo,

The notion that Neanderthal are extinct is hogwash. Their bloodline courses though all of Europe. We (Europeans) are Neanderthal. In northern and eastern Europe you can even see it in our faces. But no other race of human has been discriminated against more than the Neanderthal.

The root causes of racism against Neanderthal.

1. The first skull found was poorly reconstructed, perhaps due to the artist’s preconceived notions, and its ugly face was the victim of sensationalism in all the worlds’ papers. Who would want to look like that the world thought? Obviously it must have been another species. However, a hundred years latter, the National Geographic had the guts to reconstruct the skull using better methods. The chap turned out to be a rather handsome Northern European.

2. Science is dead. No one is more fundamentalist, close minded, or pig headed than the modern scientist. They are afraid to think for themselves, have an imagination, think outside the box, use common sense, or be unconventional in any way. They are horribly insecure in their fear of being wrong. Once one of their preconceived notions takes root, nothing will shake it. All research in a subject from then on will be predetermined by there steadfast unwavering bias. When my father went to Mackay School of mines, his favorite professor believed in continental drift. The other professors considered him a compete heretic and pariah and would not socialize with him. My father switched to math. Such is modern science. If by some fluke, all the wildlife biologists in America neglected to note that bears shit in the woods, and a researcher noted that none of the peer reviewed journals noted such, then modern science would state emphatically that bears do not shit in the woods. As a result of this ethnocentric hubris, modern anthropology will remain stuck with the stupid “out of Africa” theory, and will never admit the truth.

There is no mystery about the demise of the Neanderthal; he was an adaptation of changing weather patterns. As the ice retreated, lands flooded, and other people moved north as the Bosporus filled their home with sea water. The people of the flooded Black Sea did not murder the people of the north, they married them. Case closed.[/i]

mojo
04-29-2008, 10:22 PM
Martian, i agree in the possibility of the Neandertals having interbred, there is a fair bit more evidence required though for it be accepted wholeheartedly.
The skeletal remains found in Spain i think are the only so far that point to interbreeding.


Some more interesting evidence has come to light regarding the neandertals lately. Its often been thought that a Neandertals inability to adapt to new diets may have been a contributing factor in their extinction. This new evidence is only from one sample but if further evidence is found to corroborate the findings it would perhaps lessen diet as a potential reason for their demise.

news.nationalgeographic.com (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080428-neanderthals-diet.html)


Tiny bits of plant material found in the teeth of a Neandertal skeleton unearthed in Iraq provide the first direct evidence that the human ancestors ate vegetation, researchers say.
Little is known about diet of Neandertals (also spelled Neanderthals), although it's widely assumed that they ate more than just meat.

mojo
08-07-2010, 09:52 PM
Some interesting articles.

http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/neanderthal-bedroom-house.html
 
THE GIST
An apparent Neanderthal sleeping chamber has just been unearthed within Esquilleu Cave in Cantabria, Spain.
The room likely contained grass beds, which served double duty as seats, near a hearth.
Other research supports that Neanderthals constructed such functional living spaces within caves and rock shelters.

 

"In my opinion, Neanderthal extinction may have been caused by several factors working at the same time," he said. "Environmental changes, a slightly different social organization, a different rate of reproduction, spread of diseases, direct competition for resources and many other factors may have played an important role in the fate of Neanderthals."
He and other researchers have also not ruled out that Neanderthals were simply absorbed into the modern human population.


Audio presentation.

http://www.thetakeaway.org/2010/aug/05/caveman-love-caveman-thought/
 
Recent research on neandertals suggests that, despite our beliefs that we were superior to them, we may, in fact, be them - at least in part. One study concludes that some of us are 4 percent neandertal, and that the rest of us probably have traces of neandertal in us. And two archaeological sites in Spain indicate that neandertals wore face paint and jewelry and likely had language - just like us.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=coffeebrk&part=neand01
 
To perhaps everyone's surprise, the genome comparisons revealed interbreeding had taken place between Neanderthals and our ancestors, but not as we expected. Despite there being no evidence that Neanderthals lived in China and Papua New Guinea, the two individuals from these areas are as closely related to the Neanderthals as the French individual is. In fact, these three people share 1% to 4% of their nuclear DNA with Neanderthals. In contrast, the comparisons do not show any evidence of interbreeding with the ancestors of Africans. One theory to explain this is that gene mixing took place much earlier than thought, after early humans had migrated out of Africa and into regions such as the Middle East (at least 100,000 years ago) but before they migrated to Europe and western Asia. The genetic contribution from Neandertals would then have been carried with early humans as the colonized all of Eurasia.
The comparisons with modern human genomes also revealed 78 individual genetic changes that result in protein differences between humans and Neanderthals. The number of changes is remarkably small given the 300,000 years which separate humans and Neanderthals from their common ancestor. But these differences do occur in interesting genes.
For example, three out of six genes that had multiple substitutions were in skin, suggesting the importance of skin form and function to the evolution of humans. One of these is the TRPM1Entrez Gene (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=books&details_term=TRPM1) Gene, which code for melastatin, an ion channel important for maintaining melanocyte pigmentation in the skin. The same substitution found in some humans removes the start codon. The Entrez Gene (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=pmc&details_term=repetin) gene encodes repetin, an extracellular epidermal matrix protein found in the epidermis, and at high levels in sweat glands, hair roots, and the tongue.

Lexion
08-08-2010, 01:29 PM
Most excellent necro bump.

Thanks, my Curious friend.

mojo
08-09-2010, 05:34 AM
Most excellent necro bump.

Thanks, my Curious friend.


funny the stuff you forget you've posted before. :)
google sent me an alert about a new article on neandertals and i remembered this thread, lol.

ozzy2
08-10-2010, 05:51 AM
Very interesting subject. The dissapearing act seems to have aso collided with another factor which I haven't heard mentioned before, the end/beggining of a 26000yr cycle. Can galactic energy/vibrations , whatever, have an effect on DNA?
If something could trigger a major DNA alteration how soon would the effects be present? one generation? would there be any transitional evidence?. This 26000yr cycle also seems to have been the time of a technology emergence that has not been explained either. Technology that could have been a result of DNA changes?
Technicaly advanced humans made the Tasmanian aboriginal population dissapear completely within a few generations.
Just a few thoughts of mine, but before you laugh too loud or shoot me down the amkon way, I would really like some serious response here, its obvious Im no scientist, Im actualy a mechanic, but I do have a big intrest in this subject, so please be gentle.

mojo
08-10-2010, 06:30 AM
Very interesting subject. The dissapearing act seems to have aso collided with another factor which I haven't heard mentioned before, the end/beggining of a 26000yr cycle. Can galactic energy/vibrations , whatever, have an effect on DNA?
If something could trigger a major DNA alteration how soon would the effects be present? one generation? would there be any transitional evidence?. This 26000yr cycle also seems to have been the time of a technology emergence that has not been explained either. Technology that could have been a result of DNA changes?


if the neandertal dna was altered why did it only affect them and not homo saps?


is that gentle enough?

Chorlton
08-10-2010, 06:45 AM
I definatly saw neanderthals in a pub in Mt Magnet in the 70's.

ozzy2
08-10-2010, 06:54 AM
yeah, just gentle enough. I can see the problem here, but there is still primative men (humans) in nomadic tribes who survive to this day as they did 50,000 years ago, why have they not changed? What was responsible for the leap from cave to house to town house? in a relatively short space of time (some say sudden appearance) why did the giant Kangaroo disapear along with a whole range of "mega" fauna but other species continued unchanged? Something causes sudden changes, but it dosen't change everything. This could apply to humans (and why shouldn't it) when the ways of the Australian Aborigine remained consistent for many thousand years other "types" of humans went from caves to Pyramids and then on to the moon and whatever, why only "select" humans? Maybe Neanderthal took an upgrade and Homo went a level higher because his base was different to start with, I dont know but I enjoy exploring the possabilities that the challenge presents.

ozzy2
08-10-2010, 06:55 AM
I definatly saw neanderthals in a pub in Mt Magnet in the 70's.

And they didn't recognise you?

mojo
08-10-2010, 06:57 AM
What was responsible for the leap from cave to house to town house? in a relatively short space of time.

i have a theory but its unrelated to this topic. :)

ozzy2
08-10-2010, 07:14 AM
I would like to hear that, sorry if I went off thread.
But I still believe that DNA could be affected in a way that brought about sudden change, and if we look at all our historical information regarding evolution og species we see change at varying times with actual "jumps" from one version to another with no transitional phase. Im not aware of a single tranistionary fossil that completely ties one "form" with the next for any species, including neanderthal. If we look carefully there are sudden disappearances across the board, humans and animals. Maybe the answer to the neanderthal mystery lies in the answer to all the other dissapearance mysteries, the one common thread is DNA and its ability to modify and change.

mojo
08-10-2010, 07:20 AM
I would like to hear that, sorry if I went off thread.
But I still believe that DNA could be affected in a way that brought about sudden change, and if we look at all our historical information regarding evolution og species we see change at varying times with actual "jumps" from one version to another with no transitional phase. Im not aware of a single tranistionary fossil that completely ties one "form" with the next for any species, including neanderthal. If we look carefully there are sudden disappearances across the board, humans and animals. Maybe the answer to the neanderthal mystery lies in the answer to all the other dissapearance mysteries, the one common thread is DNA and its ability to modify and change.

haha...its alright mate, every topic gets "evolved" around here. :)

perhaps a radiation burst of some sort could have altered the dna of mammals, i dont know but youd think there would be evidence of something like that occuring.
what else could cause dna to mutate quickly?

ozzy2
08-10-2010, 07:26 AM
what else could cause dna to mutate quickly?

Intervention, but thats my other pet theory, ZS Sumeria and all that.:D

ozzy2
08-10-2010, 07:30 AM
I said Im only a mehanic, so Im not going to go to war with Richard Dawkins or Darwin, but the difference berween primates and us is the fused 2nd and 3rd chromosone, apparently that cant happen through natural evolution processes, so who did that?

mojo
08-10-2010, 07:31 AM
Intervention, but thats my other pet theory, ZS Sumeria and all that.:D

sitchin is a bullshit artist.
ive been studying sumer, anatolia and the caucasus for years.

ozzy2
08-10-2010, 07:43 AM
Excellent, I came here to learn, That's exactly what I wanted to hear, maybe Ill have to start another thread, but I am hugely interested in your analysis of Sitchin and how you came to your conclusion. I need to hear the alternative, but the principal story sounds more logical than anything else I've heard. If you could summarise that some how I can stop derailing your thread.
Cheers.

mojo
08-10-2010, 07:50 AM
there are a couple of good threads relating to "an atlantean theory" located in mesopotamia/anatolia.
there is also a good thread on "ancient human civilizations" long before modern historians would have us believe.
if you can wait until tomorrow i scrounge up some links for you of some of the better threads here that will interest you..

short story, i believe that the sumerians or their ancestors were the remnants of a previously undiscovered semi advanced civilization that are the basis of the "Atlantis" myth.
no alien intervention required for my theory unfortunately, it doesnt sell books. :(

ozzy2
08-10-2010, 07:55 AM
Cool, I wait. But have to agree about advanced civilisations, we saw the egyptian display in Adelaide a few years ago and me and the missus listened to the biggest load of crap Id ever heard in regards to its origination (displayed items). There was a sarcouphagus (im illiterate,ignore spelling, just guess) that was not made 3000 years ago by two fuckwits with copper hammers and a chisel. It is the most beautifuly crafetd objectwe have ever laid eyes on bla bla bla, sorry off thread again and half pissed. Look forward to your links.

BE2
08-10-2010, 08:06 AM
that was not made 3000 years ago by two fuckwits with copper hammers and a chisel.agree. not by fuckwits but by craftsmen.

ozzy2
08-10-2010, 08:25 AM
so were on day 247 of chiseling the 3d feathers that span the whole metre plus of the chest, following the contour of the human figure in perfect parallel lines and were just touching up one of the thousands of perfectly symetrical lines that make up the shape of one feather within a feather and abdul says to zahid, "fuck", zahid says "what?" abdul says, "we'll have to start again, I just fucked it, chipped the edge off" zahid says "for fuck sake, this is the third time" abdul says " sorry man, Im tryin, should I fill out an incident report?" zahid says "nah, i dont want you to get fired, an the old prick aint dead yet, just get the apprentice to chisel out another one and we'll start again" abdul say's "cheers bro, Im glad Im workin wit you and not Kahzid, he's had three guys killed this year already"
Craftsman my arse.

BE2
08-10-2010, 08:46 AM
Craftsman my arse. Oh OK. It was aliens and angels of Ra. My mistake.

ozzy2
08-10-2010, 09:00 AM
No, just ordinary people using a method that we no longer are familiar with, lost for some reason or another. Seriously man it resembled something that was at the least moulded. I have been to the louvre in paris also and seen this same level of perfection in their egyptian displays, its beyond the capabilities of a few dudes with chisels, simple. No aliens this time, bnut technology beyond our current methods of crafting shit.

BE2
08-10-2010, 09:12 AM
One fuckwit a hammer and a couple of chisels...

http://facstaff.unca.edu/jhartsfi/Art/michaelangelo%20pieta.jpg

BE2
08-10-2010, 09:16 AM
one fuckwit, a paintbrush and a couple buckets of pigment...

http://facstaff.unca.edu/jhartsfi/Art/Rembrandt%20self%20portrait.jpg

BE2
08-10-2010, 09:18 AM
another fuckwit a hammer and a couple of chisels...

http://i-cias.com/egypt/photos/tanis_statues02.jpg

BE2
08-10-2010, 09:19 AM
catch my drift?

ozzy2
08-10-2010, 09:39 AM
Yeah, no argument, but what I saw made that look amatuer. And, there are many examples of it. Exsquisetly fine detail over such a large area that a mistake is out of the question, rock as hard as granite polished to the sheen of car duco with not a blemish, I would have agreed with you until I saw works of art that make the roman statues look, well, amatuer. If you saw this in the flesh you would really feel different about it, I know I did and I have seen the roman statues from touching distance, apples and oranges really. Painting is a completely different thing, maybe if you understood the meaning of ancient cave paintings you may see them differently also. (not saying I understand them) the eye of the beholder has a big play in things. Symbolism goes beyond the replication of what the eye saw. so on, so forth....

MrPenny
08-10-2010, 09:54 AM
I think you're talkiing out your ass ozzy2.......how much closer to perfection can the Pieta possibly be? I don't think it's conceivable for something to make those examples look "amatuerish".

BE2
08-10-2010, 10:18 AM
It's a modern conceit to consider ancient civilizations to be somehow 'primitive' relative to our times. And therein may lie Ozzy's surprise at their degree of creative mastery. Ancient Egypt certainly had her Michelangelos and Rembrandts and Picassos. Why should it be otherwise? Art has never required any leaps of technology.

ozzy2
08-10-2010, 07:11 PM
It's a modern conceit to consider ancient civilizations to be somehow 'primitive' relative to our times. And therein may lie Ozzy's surprise at their degree of creative mastery. Ancient Egypt certainly had her Michelangelos and Rembrandts and Picassos. Why should it be otherwise? Art has never required any leaps of technology.

I've seen enough genuine artifacts up close to recognise the difference Im refering to. The sarcoughagus (fuck the spelling) I have seen was by account of the curator "used" more than once, it had some additional inscriptions on it that had been added after it was initially made, these inscriptions did look like they were done with a chisel, very amatuer by comparison, I believe it was made in more ancient times and re used during the classic egyptian era as with a lot of other artifacts found in egypt, the really good stuff is much older. this is just the opinion of my arse though, no one has to believe me.

BE2
08-10-2010, 07:16 PM
Yeah- it was sort of an Egyptian tradition to obliterate the cartouches of earlier Pharaohs who fell into disrepute. Sorta like graffiti. I wouldn't make any judgments on that basis.

ozzy2
08-10-2010, 07:55 PM
anyway back to neanderthals. my bad.

mojo
08-10-2010, 09:52 PM
i think i understand ozzy's point.
the important fact lies not in who made the sarcophagus but whether the skills to make the sarcophagus are remnants of an older civilization.
i think thats a perfectly acceptable theory.

Jackinthebox
08-12-2010, 06:59 PM
If they were strictly carnivores then it is quite likely they were cannibals as well. Cannibalism is known to have adverse genetic effects as well as profound impact on the brain and thought processes of individuals. Perhaps a "mad-cow" epidemic wiped them out?

EDIT:

That was my first thought, guess I should have waited til I read the whole OP, lol.

mojo
08-13-2010, 07:12 AM
yeah, i9 thinki there is enough evidence to suggest there were omniverous.

mojo
11-19-2010, 06:25 PM
http://amkon.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1554&stc=1&d=1290205469



While early brain development in the two species is similar, major differences occur later and point to significant divergence in brain function.
Neanderthals and modern humans, who may have co-existed as recently as 30,000 years ago and likely interbred to a minor degree (http://www.suite101.com/content/neanderthals-and-modern-humans-probably-interbred-a281763), are separated from one another by only a few genetic differences. Their brains are comparably sized, with Neanderthal brains being slightly larger on average.


The skulls of Neanderthals and modern humans, while similar in size, differ sharply in shape. As infants, both species' skulls are elongated, probably in order to facilitate passage through the birth canal, which is similarly shaped in both species. In fact, the skulls of all hominin species, as well as those of chimpanzees, are likewise elongated, making the oddly shaped skulls of humans a later development and something of an anomaly.


Shortly after birth, the skulls of human infants begin a transformation from the ancestral elongated shape, becoming much more rounded, like a globe. This divergence of skull shape and the associated differences in brain development may be a partial clue to unlocking the mystery of humans' so-called "runaway" brain growth. The differences may also say a great deal about Neanderthals' behavior and mental capabilities.


Researchers used the fossilized skulls of eleven Neanderthal individuals (including one infant) to create visual imprints of their brains for comparison to modern human brains. While it is not entirely certain what difference the shape of the brains makes, it is likely that the large divergence that occurs in human brains in the first year of life has a significant impact on the mental functioning of the species.
Neanderthals and modern humans are genetically very similar, but the nature of the brain divergence points to a comparable divergence in function. Researchers speculate that Neanderthals, while highly intelligent, were probably not capable of the sophisticated communicative skills that humans possess, and may have displayed less of humans' social and emotional complexity. This tentative conclusion was reached on the basis of data not only on the differences in brain shape, but also in small genetic differences between the two species that may have affected the pattern and speed of brain development.

mojo
11-19-2010, 06:31 PM
Couple of recent articles pose more interesting questions than they answer imo.
http://www.suite101.com/content/neanderthals-and-modern-humans-probably-interbred-a281763
 


Previous studies on the mitochondrial DNA of Neanderthal specimens showed no overlap with the specified genetic markers of the modern human samples; however, the latest study, published in May of 2010, put together a Neanderthal genome from the bones of three H. neanderthalensis females and compared it to the genomes of five living people from far-flung parts of the world.
The findings were startling, if not altogether unexpected modern humans from parts of Europe and Asia (but not Africa) shared 14% of their genome with Neanderthals. Some of the modern human genes that researchers identified as derived from altered Neanderthal genes included those associated with metabolism, the healing of wounds, skin pigmentation, and schizophrenia. This new finding opens up possibilities for a great deal more research into the role of these close hominin cousins on the evolution of modern human beings.


Hahaha....imagine running into a neandertal in the midst of a schizophrenic episode.......no thanks!!!!

BE2
11-19-2010, 06:40 PM
happens here all the time.

theeindiee
11-19-2010, 06:41 PM
Ahhh so neanderthals had an excess of that psychedelic spirit juice in their brains?

Neanderthals were always trippin!

mojo
11-19-2010, 06:53 PM
Neanderthals were always trippin!

could be what killed them off, picked some bad shrooms after eating a datura salad!!

guy
11-19-2010, 07:26 PM
Is it true that Neanderthals had no domesticated dogs?

mojo
11-19-2010, 07:31 PM
Is it true that Neanderthals had no domesticated dogs?

they ate them with the Datura salad.

guy
11-19-2010, 07:32 PM
they ate them with the Datura salad.
Mike Vick?

mojo
11-19-2010, 07:38 PM
Is it true that Neanderthals had no domesticated dogs?

Good question though dude.

http://www.prosbb.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=7276.0




The canines that surrounded these early settlements became part of the loose community of Homo sapiens.These grandfathers of modern dogs had a much better sense of smell than Homo sapiens(even better then Neanderthals) and a better sense of hearing.This turned these scavengers into an effective canine alarm system since they could detect the approach of hostile people or animals even better than human sentinels might.Their barking provided a timely warning,allowing villagers to survive raids by competitors who did not have dogs.If we believe the concept of an extended phenotype,the resident dogs and humans were now part of a community that was evolving.In essence,the dogs and humans entered into an evolutionary contract.The human beings in dog-infested settlements had a higher survival rate because the dogs used their better sensory perception to serve as sentinels.Human beings could concentrate on organizing their home base to survive attacks and create weapons and tools.The humans did not have to be eternally vigilant,which meant that they also got more useful sleep,which improved their health and functional intellectual abilities.This more efficient home base in turn provided more reliable food sources for scavengers,including the evolving domestic dog.
Whenevr humans rallied to the sound of a canine alarm,indicating the presence of a predator,they not only protected their fellow human inhabitants but also protected their companion dogs as well. The dogs improved their own survival rate even more by developing cooperative traits that made them indispensable and endearing to their early human associates.
Thefossil record shows that around 14,000 years ago,the shape and size of the wolf skulls found around ancient human settlements changed,indicating that they had become domestic dogs.No evidence of domesticated dogs appears around any Neanderthal sites.

guy
11-19-2010, 07:43 PM
I read something a while ago that theorized that Cro Magnon man had an advantage over Neanderthals because they had at that time domesticated dogs and it was almost impossible for Neanderthals to wage a surprise attack ,but neanderthals could have been prone to a surprise night time attack.

mojo
11-19-2010, 07:47 PM
makes sense. wouldnt be the complete jigsaw puzzle but quite possibly a piece of it.

guy
11-19-2010, 07:49 PM
It was probably numerous factors...not one, as you said.

century
11-20-2010, 03:52 AM
TURxnq-_W3M

MIQNzbd4-RY

gpCned5EYuk

mojo
02-11-2011, 07:33 PM
Just posted this in another thread but is alo pertinent here.



Excavations in the cave of Ghar Dalam, in the south-eastern corner of Malta, carried out by Dr. Giuseppe Despott, curator of the Natural History Museum of the University of Malta, working for a research committee of the British Association, has brought to light the remains of Neanderthal man in that island, thus extending the distribution of this species to another continent;


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v101/n2543/abs/101404a0.html

further evidence that neandertals were not just brutes, particulalry if they were capable of making open sea voyages.