29 Jul 11
Simple answer, they outnumbered Neanders about 10 to 1.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-strength.html
That and the more complex set of social behaviors, technology advancements, artistic development and co-operative hunting techniques,
Neanderthals were driven out of the choicest lands in the glacial cold periods and retreated to less viable lands, all very quickly in terms of how long Neanderthals had been around, like half a million years living in the northern cold climate and then in a few thousand years after modern humans came storming out of Africa, bye bye neanderthal.
29 Jul 11
1 edit
The link doesn't show the details of the article, only a summary. Do you have another link to the article?
What a pity, we can't see any living Neanderthals today?
Can they be cloned back to life?
I wonder if a few hundred years from now, if the bushmen of the Kalahari and the Aborigines, may also die out?
29 Jul 11
Neandertal merged with homo sapiens in the Middle East. As the climate heated up from sapiens' technology causing global warming, Neandertal, which was adapted for frigid temperatures, lost more and more land to sapiens. Also they couldn't run or throw very well. Javelins killed most of their prey before they could tackle it and stab it to death.
29 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseBut that doesn't explain why Neanderthals were the ones driven out initially...
Simple answer, they outnumbered Neanders about 10 to 1.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-strength.html
That and the more complex set of social behaviors, technology advancements, artistic development and co-operative hunting techniques,
Neanderthals were driven out of the choicest lands in the glacial cold periods and retreated to less viable lan ...[text shortened]... en in a few thousand years after modern humans came storming out of Africa, bye bye neanderthal.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by shahenshahBushmen have been coexisting with other human races for 100,000+ years. They're not going anywhere. Once they educate themselves they'll be unstoppable. I suspect ignorance of the rest of the world is what keeps them weak.
The link doesn't show the details of the article, only a summary. Do you have another link to the article?
What a pity, we can't see any living Neanderthals today?
Can they be cloned back to life?
I wonder if a few hundred years from now, if the bushmen of the Kalahari and the Aborigines, may also die out?
Australian Aborigines I don't know much about.
Of course cultures do absorb one another, which is what happened to the Neandertals - absorbed by sapiens.
29 Jul 11
2 edits
Bushmen + Zulu discipline + Anglo military techniques, mix in a little gangster culture in, you got some impressive people there potentially. Also ride the Anglo ships and see the world...make it so people are like "I know a Bushman, his name is X. Their real name is Khoi." Learn negotiation from Arabs, etc.
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by shahenshahI went to that link and the whole article appeared.
The link doesn't show the details of the article, only a summary. Do you have another link to the article?
What a pity, we can't see any living Neanderthals today?
Can they be cloned back to life?
I wonder if a few hundred years from now, if the bushmen of the Kalahari and the Aborigines, may also die out?
30 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaWell if there were 10 neanders in a camp and 100 humans came upon them and there was a fight, who do you think would win? Granted greater strength for Neanders, they would still be overwhelmed by superior numbers and more sophisticated weapons.
But that doesn't explain why Neanderthals were the ones driven out initially...
It sounds like humans came out of Africa in hoards.
Not like what we would call a hoard now but like I said, 10 neanders, 100 humans, human 1, neander 0.
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by sonhouseThe only advantage necessary to replicate our expansion at their expense is a very slightly shorter gestation period. The maths does the rest. They could even have been smarter than us, it wouldn't have helped them.
Simple answer, they outnumbered Neanders about 10 to 1.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-strength.html
That and the more complex set of social behaviors, technology advancements, artistic development and co-operative hunting techniques,
Neanderthals were driven out of the choicest lands in the glacial cold periods and retreated to less viable lan ...[text shortened]... en in a few thousand years after modern humans came storming out of Africa, bye bye neanderthal.
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat I meant is that to get to much larger populations, you need advantages. In this case, technology.
Well if there were 10 neanders in a camp and 100 humans came upon them and there was a fight, who do you think would win? Granted greater strength for Neanders, they would still be overwhelmed by superior numbers and more sophisticated weapons.
It sounds like humans came out of Africa in hoards.
Not like what we would call a hoard now but like I said, 10 neanders, 100 humans, human 1, neander 0.
Professor Sir Paul Mellars, Professor Emeritus of Prehistory and Human Evolution at the Department of Archaeology, said: "In any event, it was clearly this range of new technological and behavioural innovations which allowed the modern human populations to invade and survive in much larger population numbers than those of the preceding Neanderthals across the whole of the European continent.
I would like to know what he means by behavioural innovations exactly. Seems very speculative so far.
30 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaMellars' views in this subject are somewhat conservative. Many archaeologists do not consider that technological or behavioural innovations were necessarily significant in the 'clash' between these species. Enhanced fecundity appears to be more than sufficient to explain the outcome.
What I meant is that to get to much larger populations, you need advantages. In this case, technology.
[quote]Professor Sir Paul Mellars, Professor Emeritus of Prehistory and Human Evolution at the Department of Archaeology, said: "In any event,[b] it was clearly this range of new technological and behavioural innovations which allowed the modern human p ...[text shortened]... ke to know what he means by behavioural innovations exactly. Seems very speculative so far.[/b]
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaWell he might be talking about artistic tendency, like drumming and such. It could frighten the mostly artless neanderthals if they watched a bunch of humans dancing around a campfire and screaming and grunting in some proto-language.
What I meant is that to get to much larger populations, you need advantages. In this case, technology.
[quote]Professor Sir Paul Mellars, Professor Emeritus of Prehistory and Human Evolution at the Department of Archaeology, said: "In any event,[b] it was clearly this range of new technological and behavioural innovations which allowed the modern human p ...[text shortened]... d like to know what he means by behavioural innovations exactly. Seems very speculative so far.
Also, technological innovations like long spears and such would be a frightful advantage in a fight where neanderthals had just short fire hardened sticks.
That kind of thing I think is what he is talking about.
30 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatInteresting. Do you have a link to a paper that makes the claim that fecundity was the major factor ,rather than mortality?
Mellars' views in this subject are somewhat conservative. Many archaeologists do not consider that technological or behavioural innovations were necessarily significant in the 'clash' between these species. Enhanced fecundity appears to be more than sufficient to explain the outcome.
Also, seems to me fecundity would be part of behavioural differences.
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaI've not gone searching for references, but I think it was Eric Trinkaus who first suggested the idea back in the 80s. As I recall there were some finds from the middle-east (Kebara? Skhul? Kafzeh? can't remember, one of those) which didn't really support his theory - pelvic canal size I believe - so it fell from favour. This is unfortunate in my view, because it only takes a very slight advantage in birth and/or survival rate for one species, even a less well-adapted species, to out-compete a direct competitor. This is easily demonstrated in simulation.
Interesting. Do you have a link to a paper that makes the claim that fecundity was the major factor ,rather than mortality?
Also, seems to me fecundity would be part of behavioural differences.
You are correct that fecundity may be behavioural, but it may also be physiological. I do not believe that we know enough about the biology and behaviour of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis to judge one way or the other.