Re: Homo Neanderthalis
- From: Doug Weller <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 20:36:40 +0100
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 06:26:36 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Alan Crozier wrote:
<professor_pen9@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageThis idea of 'essence' seems to be not uncommon, eg primitive peoples
news:1143855501.799924.183720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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?
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. My own hypothesis is
that the newcomers were hostile to the
underevolved Neanderthals, who were
rapidly exterminated, and perhaps even
eaten, by Homo sapiens.
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?
That last bit sounds very speculative, but it wouldn't be the first time speculation has
been seen in an archaeological context! It reminds me vaguely of a book I bought cheap about
thirty years ago, in which the author's thesis was that "intelligence can be eaten" and that
humans evolved by eating each other's brains. I don't know if he said anything about
Neanderthals, though. It was such rubbish that I threw it away after reading a few pages.
The title was "The Beginning was the End" and the author was called something like Oskar Kis
Maerth. I'm sure he's forgotten now.
Your hypothesis also reminds me of some anthropological accounts of head shrinking, for
instance among the Jivaro Indians, where the idea was to acquire the "vital force" of the
victim. Is that what you mean by "essence"?
fearing that cameras will steal their 'essence'. Or wasn't the heart
eaten to gain
And some people view the Christian act of Holy Communion as a
cannibalistic one, an attempt to consume the essence of Jesus in some way.
http://www1.uol.com.br/bienal/24bienal/rot/irotasi02a.htm
" resistance to foreign invasion and cannibalism became synonymous as
natives such as the Caribs and Tupinamba fought, killed, and devoured
their enemies to resist complete cultural domination and slavery. They
took the assumption that by eating the enemies they would own the soul and
absorb their fighting ability."
As for Neanderthals:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/cannibalism/2.html
"According to Tim White in Once Were Cannibals, evidence found in Croatia
points to cannibalism amongst Neanderthal tribes. The bones of
Neanderthals were discovered during an archeological excavation, which
suggest that humans ate the brains of other humans. Panche Hadzi-Andonov
wrote in Cannibalism and Archeology that some of the criteria
archeologists use to identify cannibalism from human remains includes
evidence of brain exposure, facial mutilation, burnt bone, dismemberment,
cut marks, bone breakage hammerstone abrasions, and missing vertebrae.
Although not all of the criteria was met when studying the bones found in
Croatia, the most crucial key elements were present, including crushing of
the heads and bones, burning of the bodies, suggesting they had been
roasted over fire and evidence of a hammering to split the brain open."
and a bit further down:
"Many cannibalistic tribes believed that consuming one's enemy would allow
them to obtain and absorb the spirit and skills of the victim."
Then there is Endocannibalism:
"Upon consumption of the deceased group member, the spirit of the dead was
believed to be absorbed by the entire tribe and was considered by them to
be one of "the most respectful ways to treat a human body.""
Doesn't Seppo consider himself an expert on cannibalism? :-)
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Photographs of "primitives" (was Re: Homo Neanderthalis)
- From: t(nospam)kavanagh
- Re: Homo Neanderthalis
- From: Peter Alaca
- Photographs of "primitives" (was Re: Homo Neanderthalis)
- References:
- Homo Neanderthalis
- From: professor_pen9
- Re: Homo Neanderthalis
- From: Alan Crozier
- Homo Neanderthalis
- Prev by Date: Re: Anser to Russell Re: Anatase
- Next by Date: Re: Anatase
- Previous by thread: Re: Homo Neanderthalis
- Next by thread: Re: Homo Neanderthalis
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|