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 may have eaten animal stomachs

12 posts in this topic

In a new article published in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews, Museum anthropologists Laura Buck and Prof Chris Stringer propose that evidence of bitter root plants found on Neanderthal teeth may point to a practice of eating the stomach contents of their prey.

http://phys.org/news...l-stomachs.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't seem to surprising. After all you went through the effort to kill the animal, why not get the most out of it?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We used to have to feed oats to cows or horses before humans could eat it. We couldn't digest it straight from the plant. I think there were other plants likethat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eventually scientists will discover that the poor Neanderthal was not the lumbering idiot that they have been claiming, but equal to the modern humans who replaced them not only in intelligence, but the creation of crafts and such. Just because they had a different type of physique and brain, that does not make them inferior and dim-witted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paleo-haggis?

My high school biology teacher insisted that, in survival mode, humans should eat all of a plant or animal, as could be ingested (husks of corn, skin and rinds of fruits and vegetables, internal animal organs) for maximum nutrition.

Now we recognize the reality of "Mad-Cow Disease" and potentially detrimental vegetable and animal parts. A recent news story revealed the venous, nerve and connective tissue material comprising about 50% of McDonald's Chicken McNuggets. Does this make them more or less nutritious?

Apparently, though, for their time the early 'homo sapiens' knew their environment and how to make best use of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eventually scientists will discover that the poor Neanderthal was not the lumbering idiot that they have been claiming, but equal to the modern humans who replaced them not only in intelligence, but the creation of crafts and such. Just because they had a different type of physique and brain, that does not make them inferior and dim-witted.

Umm, science has known for a long time that H. neanderthalensis was not a lumbering idiot at all. The made advanced tools, used fire, built dwellings, buried their dead, cared for their sick and even made jewelry and cave art, In fact, there are reasons to believe that they even had a spoken language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paleo-haggis?

My high school biology teacher insisted that, in survival mode, humans should eat all of a plant or animal, as could be ingested (husks of corn, skin and rinds of fruits and vegetables, internal animal organs) for maximum nutrition.

Now we recognize the reality of "Mad-Cow Disease" and potentially detrimental vegetable and animal parts. A recent news story revealed the venous, nerve and connective tissue material comprising about 50% of McDonald's Chicken McNuggets. Does this make them more or less nutritious?

Apparently, though, for their time the early 'homo sapiens' knew their environment and how to make best use of it.

Mad cow is caused by the feeding of infected sheep to the cows. Which is whyit never really hit in the states. We mostly feed cows grains and hay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, science has known for a long time that H. neanderthalensis was not a lumbering idiot at all. The made advanced tools, used fire, built dwellings, buried their dead, cared for their sick and even made jewelry and cave art, In fact, there are reasons to believe that they even had a spoken language.

Of course they talked, they had the same voice box that we have and they had a larger brain than we do. All animals that have some kind of voice has a spoken language, just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they talked, they had the same voice box that we have and they had a larger brain than we do. All animals that have some kind of voice has a spoken language, just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Thy didn't have the same structure of muscles around the jaw and lips for control that we do. It's speculated that their proto-language would have been more musical in nature.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could have done this, if they where hungry enough then yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing surprising

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that what Haggis is?

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.