Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Neanderthals vanished due to own success

19 posts in this topic

Using data obtained from the archaeological record, a team of researchers at Arizona State University and the University of Colorado, Denver, conducted experiments using complex computer modeling to analyze evidence of how human hunter-gatherers responded culturally and biologically to the dramatic changes that took place during the last Ice Age.The results showed, among other things, that the Neanderthals, thought by many scientists to have become extinct at least in part because of their inadaptability and inability to compete with the expanding presence of modern humans, may have actually been victims of their own success.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They probably were, even if only due to the very good adaptation to a certain environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been already established that all non-sub-Saharan (aka Black african) people carry few percentage of Neanderthal DNA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow I am so pleased with this article. I have written many times that the Neanderthals were not killed off but mated with homo sapiens..I see many examples of people that are short and stocky .To me it proves integration. It takes all sorts to make the modern human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been already established that all non-sub-Saharan (aka Black african) people carry few percentage of Neanderthal DNA.

How i know the Neanderthals habitat was in Europe and Central Asia, its not possible they mixed with Black Africans.

Range_of_Homo_neanderthalensis.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How i know the Neanderthals habitat was in Europe and Central Asia, its not possible they mixed with Black Africans.

Range_of_Homo_neanderthalensis.png

What if they traveled and married in Africa, lol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - once they left, there was no saying they couldn't go back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been already established that all non-sub-Saharan (aka Black african) people carry few percentage of Neanderthal DNA.

4% to 6% on average although I bet theres a few higher and lower by chance.

I wish to contribute Biblical accounts of people living to several thousand years old. Also I wish to point out European folklore about trolls living under bridges and in caves.

A longer lifespan may have meant a much lower birth rate per year allowing them be absorbed into the population. I would also be interested in finding out if the places where advanced civilization appeared - Europe, Babylon, Persia, Eygpt, India, China, Central America have more than the average 4% to 6% neanderthal dna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might also explain many white and asian phenotypes - these specific traits would be favours by nature in these regions, which is why the facial features and skin colour is so different between Euroasians and Africans - these might have been inherited from our Neanderthal (now you can call them) ancestors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one observation i must make regarding the neanderthal skulls i have seen is that many have a "trademark" wear on the molars. as if they used their teeth to strip bark or leather or ???. another observation is that compared to homosapiens they seem to have retained most if not all of their teeth until they died. curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4% to 6% on average although I bet theres a few higher and lower by chance.

I wish to contribute Biblical accounts of people living to several thousand years old. Also I wish to point out European folklore about trolls living under bridges and in caves.

A longer lifespan may have meant a much lower birth rate per year allowing them be absorbed into the population. I would also be interested in finding out if the places where advanced civilization appeared - Europe, Babylon, Persia, Eygpt, India, China, Central America have more than the average 4% to 6% neanderthal dna.

And I would refer you the excellent book called "Gun, Germs and Steel", which explains exactly why civilizations evolved in certain areas while in others they didn't. One of the things I do not except, though, is that the Maya people lived in conditions as the Africans did, that is - thick tropical forests of Meso-America, however they did develop a very advance civilization. My take, is that the people that left Africa had to go through very harsh conditions to adapt to the alien territory they arrived, couple that with intermixing with well adapted people that lived there for hundreds of thousands of years, while passing through Asia one their way to the Americas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From wikipedia, about the book Guns, Germs and Steel:

Although agriculture arose in several parts of the world, Eurasia gained an early advantage due to the greater availability of suitable plant and animal species for domestication. In particular, Eurasia had the best collection of plants and animals suitable for domestication – barley, two varieties of wheat and three protein-rich pulses for food; flax for textiles; goats, sheep and cattle provided meat, leather, glue (by boiling the hooves and bones) and, in the case of sheep, wool. As early Middle Eastern civilizations began to trade, they found additional useful animals in adjacent territories, most notably horses and donkeys for use in transport.

In contrast, Native American farmers had to struggle to develop maize as a useful food from its probable wild ancestor, teosinte, but it provides few nutrients and must be planted one by one – an extremely cumbersome task. It should be noted that as they grew agricultural surpluses in (for example) the Mississippian culture about 1000 AD, they created more dense and specialized settlements. Eurasians had wheat and barley, which are high in fiber and nutrients and can be sown en masse with just a toss of the hand. They generated food surpluses which supported greater population growth. Such growth led to larger workforces and more inventors, artisans, etc. Grains can also be stored for longer periods of time unlike tropical crops such as bananas.

Eurasia as a whole domesticated 13 species of large animals (over 100 lb / 44 kg); South America just one (counting the llama and alpaca as breeds within the same species); the rest of the world none at all. Diamond describes the small number of domesticated species (14 out of 148 "candidates") as an instance of the Anna Karenina principle: many promising species have just one of several significant difficulties that prevent domestication.

Sub-Saharan Africans had mostly wild mammals, whereas Eurasians chanced to have the most docile large animals on the planet: horses and camels that are easily tamed for human transport; but their biological relatives zebras and onagers are untameable; and although Asian elephants can be tamed, it is very difficult to breed them in captivity;[3][4] goats and sheep for hides, clothing, and cheese; cows for milk; bullocks for tilling fields and transport; and benign animals such as pigs and chickens. Africans, developing alongside large mammals, had available lions, leopards etc. Diamond points out that the only animals useful for human survival and purposes in New Guinea came from the East Asian mainland when they were transplanted during the Austronesian settlement some 4,000–5,000 years ago.

Eurasia's large landmass and long east-west distance increased these advantages. Its large area provided it with more plant and animal species suitable for domestication, and allowed its people to exchange both innovations and diseases. Its East-West orientation allowed breeds domesticated in one part of the continent to be used elsewhere through similarities in climate and the cycle of seasons. In contrast, Australia suffered from a lack of useful animals due to extinction, probably by human hunting, shortly after the end of the Pleistocene. The Americas had difficulty adapting crops domesticated at one latitude for use at other latitudes (and, in North America, adapting crops from one side of the Rocky Mountains to the other). Africa was fragmented by its extreme variations in climate from North to South: plants and animals that flourished in one area never reached other areas where they could have flourished, because they could not survive the intervening environment. Europe was the ultimate beneficiary of Eurasia's East-West orientation: in the first millennium BC, the Mediterranean areas of Europe adopted the Middle East's animals, plants, and agricultural techniques; in the first millennium AD, the rest of Europe followed suit.[3][4]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I would refer you the excellent book called "Gun, Germs and Steel", which explains exactly why civilizations evolved in certain areas while in others they didn't. One of the things I do not except, though, is that the Maya people lived in conditions as the Africans did, that is - thick tropical forests of Meso-America, however they did develop a very advance civilization. My take, is that the people that left Africa had to go through very harsh conditions to adapt to the alien territory they arrived, couple that with intermixing with well adapted people that lived there for hundreds of thousands of years, while passing through Asia one their way to the Americas.

Has the book been peer reviewed?

The only advanced civilization to appear in Africa was the Eygptians. If you look at the picutres of their people on their temples many of them are pale skiined.

Now this isnt about racism but I'm suggesting Homosapiens are the inferior species compared to Neanderthals. Neanderthal dna leads to civilization and those regions with the most Neanderthal DNA created the most impressive civilizations. In those regions where there is none (Central and Southern Africa) there is no civilization just tribal peoples until the Europeans arrived and setup their states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the book been peer reviewed?

The only advanced civilization to appear in Africa was the Eygptians. If you look at the picutres of their people on their temples many of them are pale skiined.

Now this isnt about racism but I'm suggesting Homosapiens are the inferior species compared to Neanderthals. Neanderthal dna leads to civilization and those regions with the most Neanderthal DNA created the most impressive civilizations. In those regions where there is none (Central and Southern Africa) there is no civilization just tribal peoples until the Europeans arrived and setup their states.

Look, I suggested the same, but after reading the book I must say it has some strong points.

Also I lived in Africa (Congo) for a year and a half, and have seen the people there, and I think it's a classic case of "Resource curse" - Africa, especially tropical Africa and it's surrounding, is where Homo Sapiens evolved and so there were no environmental pressures or evolutionary bottleneck that favoured the most adaptable. In these regions, the climate barely change, food is everywhere, and it is extremely difficult to cultivate long lasting agricultural products.

Europe, for a bunch of hunter gatherer African nomads some 60,000 years ago, would have been very, very strange place to be. Temperature wise, food wise - everything. Same goes for Asia. Couple that with the intermixing of long lasting earlier homo species, which lived in those conditions for hundreds of thousands of years, and you get the picture.

IMO, Homo Sapiens was the more technologically advanced, as well as more adaptable specie. After all, it is him who invaded and eventually occupied Europe, rather than the Neanderthals immigrating south to Africa. IMO, the only difference is the actual process of adaptability and nature favourism for the most ingenuous. How many of our African forefathers survived the first Middle Eastern summer or winter? how many of them discovered which European fruit is edible, and which is poisonous? These are very strong natural selective processes that they had to pass through, and only the most ingenuous and the most gifted survived. Then they intermixed with the more resilient ancient homo populations they encountered, which boosted their chances of survival.

On the other hand, the average African continued to live in the same climate, same environment for same time, with tropical fruits all around him, and water everywhere. The same natural selective elements didn't work the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I suggested the same, but after reading the book I must say it has some strong points.

Also I lived in Africa (Congo) for a year and a half, and have seen the people there, and I think it's a classic case of "Resource curse" - Africa, especially tropical Africa and it's surrounding, is where Homo Sapiens evolved and so there were no environmental pressures or evolutionary bottleneck that favoured the most adaptable. In these regions, the climate barely change, food is everywhere, and it is extremely difficult to cultivate long lasting agricultural products.

Europe, for a bunch of hunter gatherer African nomads some 60,000 years ago, would have been very, very strange place to be. Temperature wise, food wise - everything. Same goes for Asia. Couple that with the intermixing of long lasting earlier homo species, which lived in those conditions for hundreds of thousands of years, and you get the picture.

IMO, Homo Sapiens was the more technologically advanced, as well as more adaptable specie. After all, it is him who invaded and eventually occupied Europe, rather than the Neanderthals immigrating south to Africa. IMO, the only difference is the actual process of adaptability and nature favourism for the most ingenuous. How many of our African forefathers survived the first Middle Eastern summer or winter? how many of them discovered which European fruit is edible, and which is poisonous? These are very strong natural selective processes that they had to pass through, and only the most ingenuous and the most gifted survived. Then they intermixed with the more resilient ancient homo populations they encountered, which boosted their chances of survival.

On the other hand, the average African continued to live in the same climate, same environment for same time, with tropical fruits all around him, and water everywhere. The same natural selective elements didn't work the same.

I havent read about any evidence which indicates war between both species in Europe. Have you come across any reliable sources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I havent read about any evidence which indicates war between both species in Europe. Have you come across any reliable sources?

No, and I don't think there was a war. I think they intermixed, it's just that the more advanced and ingenious homo sapiens eventually survived better and so their culture triumphed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I havent read about any evidence which indicates war between both species in Europe. Have you come across any reliable sources?

I remember reading a scholarly article several years ago that proposed that social structure differences between Neanderthals and sapiens sapiens were a major reason one species survived and the other didn't. I don't have the references handy, but it basically described Neanderthal tribes being little more than immediate family whereas sapiens sapiens typically lived in larger bands.

Living in a larger band meant that knowledge-sharing and group-hunting resulted in more quality food and more varied tools to obtain food. Neanderthals were intelligent, resourceful and physically strong but they were no match for a species who worked and learned new things together in large groups. Many hands and minds make light work. I have no doubt in my mind that there would have been battles and subsequent kidnappings of females from respective groups. I think the theory that the Neanderthal genes made for a more successful and civilised sapiens sapiens is plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the book been peer reviewed?

The only advanced civilization to appear in Africa was the Eygptians. If you look at the picutres of their people on their temples many of them are pale skiined.

Now this isnt about racism but I'm suggesting Homosapiens are the inferior species compared to Neanderthals. Neanderthal dna leads to civilization and those regions with the most Neanderthal DNA created the most impressive civilizations. In those regions where there is none (Central and Southern Africa) there is no civilization just tribal peoples until the Europeans arrived and setup their states.

Please, most Neanderthals lived in familial groups of 5-10 people on average who were part of a larger territorial group that perhaps numbered several dozen. Human beings of the same time period often lived in "familial" or face-to-face groups numbering in the dozens, which were part of a larger territorial group numbering in the hundreds, if not thousands.

Their social structure must have been much more basic and simplistic, since a complex social caste system is not needed for such small groups. Also, gender roles were not as strictly defined in Neanderthals when compared to their human contemporaries. Neanderthal women were often part of the actual hunt, even if just for distraction or causing panic in a herd of prehistoric game as evidenced by crushing injuries in their skeletons consistent with being trampled on by a large animal.

Most neanderthal men didn't survive into their late-20's with early-thirties being considered extremely old age for a Neanderthal male. This lack of elders may have contributed to their lack of innovation when it came to tool use and social complexity. There just wasn't too many adults with the experience to share with the youth, especially when Neanderthal familial groups only numbered a few individuals. In most instances, a Neanderthal would live with their own familial group most of their life only meeting with a larger territorial group for butchering of an abundance of game (there are Neanderthal butchering sites that have scores of individual animals, like mammoths and wooly rhinos) or for swapping females to be absorbed into another family group in return for some other incentive. This hardly sets the stage for a complex civilization to develop.

Neanderthals were not as inventive as contemporary human beings of the same period were, they used the same technology for about two hundred thousand years. They never even improved on the simple wooden spear by adding a stone tip to it or using it as a projectile. I'm not saying they were inferior, obviously they survived in harsh conditions for several hundred thousand years, but their innovativeness wasn't one of their strong suits.

Read the book "How to think Like a Neanderthal", it is a great source of information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.