Re: Homo Neanderthalis
- From: "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 12:27:14 +0200
professor_pen9@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: news:1143855501.799924.183720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry if this is the wrong forum, but my
enquiry is of an interdisciplinary kind,
perhaps mainly anthropological but also
partly archaeological - and there are
other sciences involved, like genetics.
The question concerns the Neanderthals,
how scientists using pretty much the same
evidence reach such different conclusions.
Can we conclude anything at all from the
larger brain size of Neanderthals? We know
of course that big brains don't always go
with intelligence, but neither Homo sapiens
nor Neanderthal was very smart at the time.
Research on their simple stone tools, for
example, shows that not much progress was
gained in Europe throughout the thousands
upon thousands of years that Neanderthals
lived there, but Homo sapiens wasn't really
any more advanced in Africa at the time,
roughly 300,000-45,000 years ago. The big
leap in technology that came about 45,000
years ago occurred in BOTH groups. Why?
Svante Paabo claims that Neanderthal DNA
has no affinity to ours, but Fred Smith,
a Chicago anthropologist, says we are a
genetic mix from interbreeding of Homo
sapiens with Neanderthals. Who is right?
Perhaps hybridisation was possible, but for real fusion
it is necessary to produce *fertile* offspring.
Fertile offspring is only possible if the partners are of the
same species, cf the sterile mules and hinnies produced
bij interbreeding horses and donkeys.
Until scientists can work together to
solve these problems we will have these
endless disagreements about exactly which
discipline can best answer the questions.
Finds of skeletons from Portugal are
understood by Trinkaus to be hybrids,
reflecting long peaceful coexistence, but
no evolutionary biologists would be
inclined to agree.
" We know that in areas such as the Levant they
must have lived in relatively close proximity for
thousands of years, and it is hard to accept
that they did not interact on some level. But
was it through love (ie., interbreeding), a mixing
of genetic material that is evidenced in the
fossil record as "hybrids,"or was it through war,
the replacement of one species by another, by
violence or competition for resources? "
Michele A. Miller "The Neanderthal demise"
http://www.athenapub.com/8miller1.htm
My own hypothesis is
that the newcomers were hostile to the
underevolved Neanderthals, who were
rapidly exterminated, and perhaps even
eaten, by Homo sapiens.
There are a lot of indications for cannibalism among
Neanderthals, but not for modern human.
Bones Of Man's Cannibal Ancestors
http://tinyurl.com/o4u3n
Cave finds revive Neandertal cannibalism
http://tinyurl.com/m8twp
Neanderthals were cannibals http://tinyurl.com/pcy2c
Bone Fragments Link Neanderthals with
Cannibalism http://tinyurl.com/rxofz
I know there are many who don't like the
notion that our ancestors were cannibals.
However, surely it is not cannibalism
if it's a different species? Wasn't our
species distinct from the Neanderthals?
Could the finds of holes in the skulls
of some Neanderthal fossils be seen as
traces of this inter-species conflict? I
think it is possible that Homo sapiens
ate Neanderthal brains as a way to
gain control over their defeated rivals'
essence. Is this hypothesis plausible?
Why do you think that is possible?
As a famous unauthorised philosopher in this group
always says: "The one who is educated from the wrong
books is not educated, he is misled."
Try this
Athena Review 2.4: Neanderthals Meet Modern Humans
http://www.athenapub.com/index8.htm
Book Review Essay on Neanderthal Man
http://tinyurl.com/rvohh [pdf]
--
p.a.
.
- References:
- Homo Neanderthalis
- From: professor_pen9
- Homo Neanderthalis
- Prev by Date: Re: Homo Neanderthalis
- Next by Date: Re: Anatase
- Previous by thread: Re: Photographs of "primitives" (was Re: Homo Neanderthalis)
- Next by thread: Re: Homo Neanderthalis
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
