Fossil teeth study takes bite out of Neanderthal-European link

halfoldman
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Actually there's no undisputed proof on that, and finding various fossils in one sediment does not necessarily mean they all lived together, especially if an event such as a cave-in could have disrupted the site.

But let's assume they did, and back then it could have been a very fertile region, with loads of animals that could have supported both human and Neanderthal lifestyles.

I'm not saying they couldn't have co-inhabited at various points, or used the same shelters (actually there's some evidence that humans eventually took over their sites, although we don't know for sure if this happened as a direct conquest, or whether humans found them empty).

Perhaps over that time humans advanced from the south and retreated at some points, whereas Neanderthals advanced from the north and retreated.

Maybe when life got tough they moved south and hunted humans.
Easy prey compared to a wooly rhinoceros.

They could have had the upper hand over smaller humans for thousands of years.
It would have changed when we invented projectiles...

edit on 22-10-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

Normally I may have agreed with you. However, they wouldn't have been buried together were there not close relationships on a community if not a familial level.I s there any one knock it out of the park thing to definitively conclude cohabitation in and of itself? I'd agree the answer is no. However there is so much circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that I'm quite comfortable saying I strongly believe that there were at least at some sites, at some periods in history cases where Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon lived and worked side by side.

To me, the really interesting part is that in Europe, the arrival of modern humans is generally marked by the slenderness of their points whereas European Neanderthal created points that weren't dissimilar to themselves much like MH were taller and more slender than their earlier counterparts. In the Levant however, the arrival of modern humans approx. 100,000 years ago did not have that hallmark. In fact their tools were remarkably similar to those used by Neanderthals living there. So much so that tools can't be used to distinguish whether a site is Neanderthal or MH. Only morphology can determine who used the site. They bore little hallmark of "culture" if you will, in the sense that they didn't have a new type of tool kit, didn't create cave art or use jewelry. It's almost backwards from how we see a more linear progression in Europe. MH arrived in Europe around 40,000 YA give or take. The oldest cave art in Europe is in Spain and dated to 40,800 YA so the culture was already with them by the time they got to Spain. Did it develop on the trek across Europe? Perhaps earlier in Africa? Was it learned and imitating something they already saw? Or could it have been from a formative cooperative period where 2 types of humans lived with or near each other? Many possibilities and not enough answers, yet.

halfoldman
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Such an interesting post, because prehistory is really much conjecture.

But I think the lack of morphology is a sign that a species is no longer evolving, and when species no longer adapt or evolve they head for extinction.

The Neandethals were perhaps too highly adapted and too specialized.

They couldn't evolve fast enough.

But that's OK, they seem to have lasted for something like 400 000 years!
Another possibility is that they did evolve, and became modern humans (possible, but I think it's unlikely).

edit on 22-10-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

Lack of morphological change over a given period of time isn't necessarily indicative of stagnation in evolution. Personally, I get a lot of crap because I'm a proponent of punctuated equilibrium, which perfectly explains periods of stagnation morphologically in my opinion. I don't know that Neanderthals were too specialized in comparison to modern humans. They were at least as smart as us and in some cases had a decent amount of cranial capacity over us. they were far stronger than any modern human, already adapted to the cold, had culture, created jewelry, buried their dead. On paper they had every advantage over us. My personal favorite hypothesis' are A. that modern humans brought with them an influx of new diseases the aboriginal population was unable to and unprepared to fight off due to 150,000 years of separation and B. that the two populations did encounter and breed. After several generations and subsequent waves of MH migration, what was originally a hybridized admixture slowly became more diluted with MH genes as the original Neanderthal population was absorbed and bred out of existence. This is a little difficult to prove given the Toba incident and subsequent bottlenecking of the entire human species as well as many others. and C. a combination of the 2 scenarios where, as we see currently with new outbreaks some people survive due to natural immunities and luck of the draw. These survivors could have potentially been absorbed into the new migrant population.

Finds in South Africa (a region not inhabited by Neanderthals) trace human art back at least 100 000 years.
io9.com...

I'd argue the Neanderthals developed from Homo erectus into Ice Age predators.

Perhaps we wiped out the last of them, although there must have been other factors.

It's very likely that they hunted humans or other species of Homo erectus at times (or stole the women), and our ancestral aggression may very well have developed in fighting back against them.

Very interesting thread gentlemen, I have no education in this science, but find it somewhat fascinating. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

Great exchanges all, learnt a thing or two mostly there is a lot more to learn,one more thing it is said that folks living below the desert in Africa have no Neanderthal genetic stuff,what about all those back migrating Rs in Cameroon ,Chad and Js in some folks in Southern Africa seems to me that they would be carriers who would then spread it around other folks even if the carriers were in small amount,especially since Cameroon is the traditional home of the Bantu speakers who then went on to colonize most of Africa east and south of the rain forest..could it be the case that such research is not complete.

reply to post by Spider879

The oldest group of people going straight back to an ancestral "Adam" are the Khoisan people in Southern Africa.
Apparently they don't have the Neanderthal ancestry markers.

I'm not entirely sure, but "pure" sub-Saharan African people apparently don't have them.

However, it goes into beyond splitting hairs, because the Neanderthal ancestry is beyond minute.

halfoldman
reply to post by Spider879

 

The oldest group of people going straight back to an ancestral "Adam" are the Khoisan people in Southern Africa.
Apparently they don't have the Neanderthal ancestry markers.

I'm not entirely sure, but "pure" sub-Saharan African people apparently don't have them.

However, it goes into beyond splitting hairs, because the Neanderthal ancestry is beyond minute.

Well the Khoisans as far I know are not back migrants they have always been there so I would not expect to find them with Neanderthal genes,I would not expect to find Es having the maker also,but the Rs and Js that do live in south of the desert had they been tested.

halfoldman
Finds in South Africa (a region not inhabited by Neanderthals) trace human art back at least 100 000 years.
io9.com...

I'd argue the Neanderthals developed from Homo erectus into Ice Age predators.

Perhaps we wiped out the last of them, although there must have been other factors.

It's very likely that they hunted humans or other species of Homo erectus at times (or stole the women), and our ancestral aggression may very well have developed in fighting back against them.

edit on 22-10-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

I had forgotten about the blonbos cave. There were some really Interesting finds there. Particularly the array if painting related wares like the abalone shells. I also agree that neanderthal likely originated Europe and was rather well adapted to colder climates. Not sure if they ever hunted H Erectus but there are pretty clear indications of canabilism at a couple of sites in Spain.

A theory on the Neanderthals: