To Be Or Not To Be Neanderthal, That Is The Question

reply to post by Heliocentric


Gee I figured they just sat around looking stupid. Considering they had no computers to occupy themselves.
Anyways, I think it is lack of intelligence of modern humans to assume they weren't somewhat intelligent. They did walk on 2 feet and have opposible thumbs. Just that alone would make them able to explore their surroundings and grow even more intelligent.

I think perhaps they were just another race that got assimilated. Perhaps it was even an act of war, sort of like the Mongolians did. That is also a very likely scenario considering their size advantage. Now look at what happened to the Mongolians. The majority have been diluted out due to mingling with those they have conquered. Only those that live in very remote areas persist.

This tree explains it pretty well. Part of me wonders if rhodesiensis or erectus might have bred with homo sapiens at one point down the road as well.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by Heliocentric
2% to 5% of Neanderthl influence may not sound like much, but consider this. We know through research on the Neanderthal genome, that Neanderthals had white skin and brown/blond/reddish hair (at least much of the European Neanderthal populations did).

...again - presumptions is all that is - and - at the exclusion of evidence that neanderthals used body paint... if they could make body paint, they could make hair dye...

I may have this all wrong, but are you suggesting hair dye changes the DNA that decides natural hair color? ...................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................

I believe it. My maternal haplogroup is U5 (b1d1) and was thought to have come into contact with neandertals on their trek out of their place of origin. Which was somewhere near Delphi Greece. On their movement north and west of their origin they are a large group that makes up much of Scandinavia and Northern Europe.

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but Neanderthal women's fossils show damage like Neanderthal men which is attributed to hunting mishaps. This meant that Neanderthal women hunted along with their men.

Compare this to our species, where the men usually hunted and the women usually sought plants or smaller animals. We were more hunter-gatherers than Neanderthals. This meant we could extract more resources from a given area than Neanderthals could. We out-competed them for resources.

Neanderthals were larger and needed more resources (i.e. food). Humans were smaller and also had a division of labor that allowed them to make better use of the existing resources as hunter-gatherers.

www.jstor.org...

So we have a combination of things happening at once:

1. We were better at extracting resources from the same amount of land.
2. Some interbreeding.
3. We had better technology.
4. Neanderthals were specialized to a ice age environment, we were more adaptive.

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but Neanderthal women's fossils show damage like Neanderthal men which is attributed to hunting mishaps. This meant that Neanderthal women hunted along with their men.

Compare this to our species, where the men usually hunted and the women usually sought plants or smaller animals. We were more hunter-gatherers than Neanderthals. This meant we could extract more resources from a given area than Neanderthals could. We out-competed them for resources.

Neanderthals were larger and needed more resources (i.e. food). Humans were smaller and also had a division of labor that allowed them to make better use of the existing resources as hunter-gatherers.

www.jstor.org...

So we have a combination of things happening at once:

1. We were better at extracting resources from the same amount of land.
2. Some interbreeding.
3. We had better technology.
4. Neanderthals were specialized to a ice age environment, we were more adaptive.

You may be right, but It is really up for debate. As you stated, a study published in Current Anthropology has suggested that a more specialized division of labor between genders and age groups gave Cro Magnon an advantage over Neanderthal man, who relied less on subsistence foods, such as milling stones to grind nuts and seeds. Instead, Neanderthals depended on large game, a high-stakes resource, to fuel their massive body mass and high caloric intake. That said, other studies have reached different conclusions, such as this one published by paleoanthropologist Bruce Hardy and Marie-Hélène Moncel:

www.livescience.com...

I'm still driving the point that Neanderthal man was not 'more stupid' than Cro Magnon, and therefore was quite capable of adapting its diet to whatever the environment offered.

The 'better technology' theory may be valid, or not. Neanderthal tools (of which only the stone tools are left) seem to have evolved less than Cro Magnon tools over time, but are generally concidered to be masterly crafted with no need for improvement in the domains that they were used.

As to the Neanderthal being better adapted to "ice-age environment", the Neanderthal was stocky, strong and had a bulky upper body. He was probably a very good short range hunter that performed well in forests and difficult terrains, while Cro Magnon was slimmer, faster and a better runner, which out-performed in open landscapes. So paleolithic Europe - which was covered in endless forests - should have been better suited for Neanderthals than Cro Magnon.

reply to post by Heliocentric


Yes it is still an unfolding story. On Feb 23, a new article was published that states Neanderthal's were already on the way to extinction 50,000 years ago. This is before our species even arrived in Western Europe.

The article claims climatic change as the cause, meaning Neanderthals had become too specialized and could not adapt to rapid changes in the environment.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
reply to post by Heliocentric

 

Yes it is still an unfolding story. On Feb 23, a new article was published that states Neanderthal's were already on the way to extinction 50,000 years ago. This is before our species even arrived in Western Europe.

The article claims climatic change as the cause, meaning Neanderthals had become too specialized and could not adapt to rapid changes in the environment.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Yes, that may be so. But don't forget that Homo Sapiens also were on the brink of extinction about 70 000 years ago:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

What are we supposed to read into that? "Due to our incapacity to adapt to changing environmental conditions, we almost disappeared as a race?" We did survive, and the Neanderthals did also survive countless environmental changes during the approximately 500 000 years they were around, so that theory just do not sit right with me, even though I do not discard it entirely.

reply to post by Heliocentric


I've seen that article also. Our population was reduced to just 2,000, again because of climate change. If a large number of other hominids had shown up then, we may have gone extinct.

If Neanderthal populations were dramatically reduced when we showed up, it would have made their extinction/integration easier.

The article is very interesting in the fact that all we need is 2,000 humans to start populating an entire planet.

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
reply to post by Heliocentric

 

I've seen that article also. Our population was reduced to just 2,000, again because of climate change. If a large number of other hominids had shown up then, we may have gone extinct.

If Neanderthal populations were dramatically reduced when we showed up, it would have made their extinction/integration easier.

The article is very interesting in the fact that all we need is 2,000 humans to start populating an entire planet.

Well, not climate change only. The world was already getting colder, and then Toba 74,000 years ago (give or take) pushed it into the freezer. It took 20,000 years for us to recover from that. And we weren't the only ones teetering on the brink. Neanderthal, and probably the Denisovans too, (and any other hominids around at the time) almost checked out forever. Just a hunch, but that may have been what drove interbreeding between them--a lack of mates.

I am curious about the fertility of modern man compared to Neanderthal fertility. I read somewhere once that perhaps it has to do with blood type incompatibility.

I will have to dig for the info, but the basic idea was neanderthal was type o neg and sub Saharan man was not.

So when ever interbreeding occurred the type o neg females died due to rh incompatibility.

Over time this would decrease Neanderthal populations, was what the article claimed. Is that even a possibility?

I am not good at understanding genetics so I have no clue if this is junk or valid scientific thought, but I just want to know where the heck my o neg blood came from!!!

I am not trying to derail the thread into rh neg talk, but you mentioned fertility as a possible explanation and I just wondered if this might explain it?

Originally posted by Mijamija
I am curious about the fertility of modern man compared to Neanderthal fertility. I read somewhere once that perhaps it has to do with blood type incompatibility.

I will have to dig for the info, but the basic idea was neanderthal was type o neg and sub Saharan man was not.

Yes, and certain populations, like the Basques, still have a very high percentage of O- blood.

So when ever interbreeding occurred the type o neg females died due to rh incompatibility.

No, the mother would survive. What happens--and it still happens today although less often because of vaccination--is that the first child is perfectly normal and healthy. Any subsequent children, however, are almost guaranteed to have physical and mental disabilities. Not long ago these children died--they didn't live long enough to reproduce although some may well have if they weren't too physically impaired. Since the baby is almost certainly Rh+, the mother's immune system builds up antibodies to the Rh positive blood of the baby, so that when she gets pregnant again, her body attacks the fetus as an invader or foreign object.

One of my aunt's best friends was Rh negative. She had 8 children, and only the first was healthy. All the others had hearing and vision problems, and one was confined to a wheelchair.

Over time this would decrease Neanderthal populations, was what the article claimed. Is that even a possibility?

Depends on how much interbreeding was going on.

I am not good at understanding genetics so I have no clue if this is junk or valid scientific thought, but I just want to know where the heck my o neg blood came from!!!

Caucasians and northern Europeans have a higher incidence of Rh- than other groups--but the Basques have an especially high rate . Their incidence is around 27%, which is really, really high. It's almost unheard of in Asia and Africa. My guess is that we acquired Rh- from the Neanderthals and it hasn't been weeded out yet.

Thanks for the explanation! That helps a lot, I wonder if this kind of inbreeding happened on a large enough level that it could be the reason why nethanderthal died out? I'd be really interested to see more concerning the fertility of Neanderthal versus man.

Originally posted by Mijamija
Thanks for the explanation! That helps a lot, I wonder if this kind of inbreeding happened on a large enough level that it could be the reason why nethanderthal died out? I'd be really interested to see more concerning the fertility of Neanderthal versus man.

We may never know for sure, but all you'd need is for the birth rate to drop, or infant mortality to rise, and you could wipe out a substantial population in a thousand years or so. That doesn't mean they died out completely, though. Their genes are still with us. It may be that we assimilated them.

I was reading Bryan Sykes' Blood of the Isles (Saxons, Vikings, and Celts in the US) a few months back and he tells an interesting story of a pair of twin brothers in Wales were supposed to have been Neanderthals. Apparently everyone in the town knew it, and the kids used to go on field trips to their cottage where they were served cake and lemonade while the teachers explained human evolution. They died in the '80's so nobody can talk to them but I think we all know people who we think look like what we'd imagine a Neanderthal to look like: powerful, heavy build and coarse features.

There was also an anthropologist who was conducting a study on skull sizes in the Welsh population because of rumors of Neanderthals. I can't remember the guy's name or if he ever published his results, though.

What Sykes found--and I've no idea if his results have held up--is that the Welsh have the oldest genetic lineages in the British Isles. And all of the so-called Celts' closest genetic relatives are...the Basques.

reply to post by HappyBunny


That is really fascinating to me because as far as I can tell my two main bloodlines on my dads side are welsh and Mexican. Now the Mexican bloodline supposedly was of Spanish and French origin, I am pretty sure that means basque, but I do not have solid proof, just family lore to back it up.

The welsh is pretty strong and we have the auburn hair and pale skin, I get my o neg supposedly from the "Mexican" bloodline but I always wondered how that was possible if it wasn't also somewhere in the welsh side as well, maybe further back than our family knows?

Again, not too good with genetics but really interesting stuff, and if Neanderthal was indeed o neg and isolated to certain areas such as the basque region and wales wouldn't that explain a higher % of o neg? Arent there mountains in those areas that form a natural buffer where it would be easier to isolate ones self?

Makes me curious about other remote locations in Europe like the alps.....I wonder if o neg would be found in a higher % in that region, or perhaps it was too cold in those mountains for Neanderthal to have settled?

All just speculation, but interesting to think about, I think Neanderthal was around in pockets a lot longer than we may be fully aware of, but with time I believe the mystery will be solved.

Originally posted by Mijamija
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

That is really fascinating to me because as far as I can tell my two main bloodlines on my dads side are welsh and Mexican. Now the Mexican bloodline supposedly was of Spanish and French origin, I am pretty sure that means basque, but I do not have solid proof, just family lore to back it up.

Hi there,

Just because they are French and/or Spanish doesn't mean they're Basque, although Basque country is in parts of both Spain and France, and Navarre in Spain is part of Basque Country.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

The welsh is pretty strong and we have the auburn hair and pale skin, I get my o neg supposedly from the "Mexican" bloodline but I always wondered how that was possible if it wasn't also somewhere in the welsh side as well, maybe further back than our family knows?

Probably. Near as they can tell, O- is about 30,000 years old.

My ancestors (on both sides) are Irish, Manx, Welsh, Scottish, and Norwegian. I'm O+ but that doesn't mean there aren't some Rh negative folks in my family. It just means that at least one parent, probably my mother, was Rh positive.

Again, not too good with genetics but really interesting stuff, and if Neanderthal was indeed o neg and isolated to certain areas such as the basque region and wales wouldn't that explain a higher % of o neg? Arent there mountains in those areas that form a natural buffer where it would be easier to isolate ones self?

That is one of the theories, yes. The Pyrenees are on the border between France and Spain. And the Basques are physically distinct people, too. Even their language is different.

Makes me curious about other remote locations in Europe like the alps.....I wonder if o neg would be found in a higher % in that region, or perhaps it was too cold in those mountains for Neanderthal to have settled?

Well, it was cold and they now think the Neanderthals weren't cold-adapted at all. That's an interesting question, though. I guess you'd have to look at each ethnic group individually.

This text might be interesting concerning the history of type O blood in Homo Sapiens:

How The Neanderthals Became The Basques
www.aoi.com.au...

That said, type O blood is well-distributed over the world (63% of the World Population share it), particularly among Native Central and Latin Americans. It is also not sure that all Neanderthals had type O blood, even though research indicate that it was a dominant. Interesting to note is that Oetzi the Ice Man had type O blood, so did the early Celtic populations. Perhaps we can speculate in an early, wide-spread type O blood presence in European Homo Sapiens thanks to Neanderthal interbreeding.

Also interesting - but speculative - is the theory of personality traits in relation to blood type.

In an independent study of 45 MBA students, naturopathic physician Peter D'Adamo reported that type O’s most often described themselves in ways related to the following characteristics; responsible, decisive, organized, objective, rule-conscious, and practical. Both male and female Type O’s reported a higher percentage of the mesomorphic body type (stocky, strong-built, massive torso) when compared to controls. Interestingly, Type O’s also scored significantly higher than the rest in “sensing” – using the 5 senses to gather information, and in the sensing-thinking combination, indicating that they are more detail and fact oriented, logical, precise and orderly. D'Adamo identifies type O's as the earliest human blood type:

en.wikipedia.org...

As I already speculated, if some populations have up to 5% Neanderthal genes, could 'Neanderthal' mentality express itself in their behavior, and could some of that be tied into blood type?

reply to post by Heliocentric


hmm well how does the 'out of Africa' model sit with this then?

The 'out of Africa' model is the accepted path of evolution so this is quite interesting... we are all inter - related.

reply to post by Thurisaz


I suppose that with the "Out of Africa" model you refer to the spread of Cro Magnon from Africa to the rest of the world, primarily emigrating over the Arab peninsula and into the Middle East. It doesn't really challenge this model, it's another debate.

However, even if we are all inter-related we are no longer all the same species, in a clinical sense, since some populations are more hybridized than others.

If you look at the homo genus as a whole, there were multiple "out of Africa" scenarios. This doesn't change anything in regard to that. Our ancestors left Africa before we did. We stayed longer, then spread out later when Neanderthals were dying out and subsequently bred with them sharing genes.