Neanderthal DNA

[War Arrow]

I guess you've all seen this.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061030/ ... 030-3.html

Well, aside from all the other issues it touches upon, or not as the case may be.

Recent finds have hammered home the fact that Neanderthals and modern man lived in many pockets of shared habitat for thousands of years.

If true, that might support the lack of immunity idea, at least if we assume the dreaded lurgey bacteria didn't turn up until late in the day, but the vitamin C thing might become a bit shaky unless HSS was just a bit more diligent about having himself a jolly old glass of Mr. Orange Juice from time to time, leaving the other guys to hog all the Pepsi little realising it would be their downfall OR HSS was just a bit more of a hardcase and ate his/her large-browed neighbours out of house, home and vitamin C, although that just takes us back to square one.

[Minimalist]

Elsewhere, once upon a time, we had a Vitamin D discussion. I think that one had to do with skin color but the bottom line remains the same. Both vitamins are required for continued living and it is a certainty that early primates had no knowledge of nutrition. Ergo, there must have been some fortunate source of C in their diets by accident.

Right now I'll be content with the organ meat theory because I doubt if these people were in a position to discard much of any kill.

[Charlie Hatchett]

Right now I'll be content with the organ meat theory because I doubt if these people were in a position to discard much of any kill.

I second that...unless something else comes to mind later that makes more sense.

[Beagle]

I've missed a good discussion. But it's been mentioned that Vitamin C was plentiful in Neandertals world, so we have to assume that he ate it. Dandelions and onion grass and many other herbs are full of ascorbic acid.

It has been suggested that HNS had some fundamental herbal knowledge, but we will probably not know for sure. I have an Herbal PDR that lists all medicinal and culinary herbs - and an added feature of so many of them is that they are rich in C.

Organ meats are loaded, and strangely enough, a mammoth tongue has enough C for the whole group for the day (probably).

Being water soluble, Vitamin C must be taken daily to ward off deficiency.
Fortunately Vitamin D can be stored for a while.

Assuming that Neandertal could dig in the frozen ground, there are many tubers that are nutrient rich.

[Beagle]

http://news-info.wustl.edu/sb/page/normal/101.html

Expertise: Human paleontology, Paleolithic archaeology, functional anatomy, skeletal biology

Bio:
Trinkaus
Download
Erik Trinkaus is considered by many to be the world's most influential scholar of Neandertal biology and evolution. Trinkaus' research is concerned with the evolution of our genus as a background to recent human diversity. In this, he has focused on the paleoanthropology of late archaic and early modern humans, emphasizing biological reflections of the nature, degree and patterning of the behavioral shifts between these two groups of Pleistocene humans. This research includes considerations of the "origins of modern humans" debate, interpretations of the archeological record, and patterns of recent human anatomical variation. In 1999, Trinkaus and an international team of scientists documented that Neandertals roamed central Europe as recently as 28,000 years ago -- the latest date ever recorded for Neandertal fossils worldwide. The team's findings could force other scientists to rethink theories of Neandertal extinction, intelligence and contributions to the human gene pool. A member of the National Academy of Sciences, Trinkaus is frequently quoted in the popular media.

Here is Erik Trinkaus. Most of the Neandertal news we post has his name somewhere in the article. He is examining old specimens that were previously declared as HNS or HSS and is showing that there is a great deal of hybridization not previously noted. We already have the latest articles posted, and I've noticed that they are poping up in forums around the internet.

We should all grab firmly on to our favorite paradigm and hang on I think.

[Manystones]

This might be fun - I believe that I can show (via articles from respected sources) that HNS was equal to or more advanced than HSS in areas of cognition, abstract thinking, technology, and art.

Beagle,

I am looking forward to this.

[Cognito]

I believe that I can show (via articles from respected sources) that HNS was equal to or more advanced than HSS in areas of cognition, abstract thinking, technology, and art.

Beags, you will need to overcome articles like the one below:

http://www.neurokinesiology.org/Paleont ... lisms.html

The article states:

If the development of the cranial capacity of pre-humans is to be considered a quintessential element in the humanization process, it could be tempting to conclude that the larger the brain of a pre-human, the closer it stood to Modern Man. This is, however, not the case because other factors, such as the neurological development of the brain itself, were also critical. The brain of the Neanderthal, for instance, was equal or slightly larger than that of Modern Man. Ref: Trinkaus and Howells, 1979.

I am not yet convinced that the Neanderthal's cognitive ability was on a par with HSS, but I do believe the populations interbred.

[Beagle]

Thanks for that Cognito - I'll see what I can do with it right after supper.

[Minimalist]

I am not yet convinced that the Neanderthal's cognitive ability was on a par with HSS

I'm not convinced that most modern HSS's 'cognitive ability' is all that sharp to begin with.

[Beagle]

Again, thanks Cognito.

Wow, I imagine this article would meet with some criticism from this scientists peer group, but I don't know if it did or not.

Firstly he seems to be comparing early bipedalism (Austalopithecus), with later humans (Neandertal) and makes a correllation between the need for the more primitive brain to develop additional neural pathways necessary for proprioception. (spatial interpretation), and then suggesting that the same thing may have been true for Neandertal. That seems to overlook 31/2 million years of evolution. Nevertheless the author seems to think that this may account for the large occipital bun on HSS - thus the reason for the large braincase.

Secondly, Neandertals predecessor, H. Heidelbergensis, had a braincase of 1700cc also, and migrated into Europe 800,000 yrs. ago. Neandertal, appeared 240,000 yrs. ago. The finished (?) product then displayed a physique much better adapted to the European climate and terrain. His brain had no need, I don't think, to adjust to a less gracile form and function.

Thirdly, I agree with the author that the larger brain capacity is no proof of equal or greater intelligence that HSS, but by the same token, and a note of cynicism, I would suggest that if Neandertal had a slighly smaller braincase than HSS (in other words reversing the difference), it would be seen as proof positive in this current scientific climate that HSS was the more intelligent.

Lastly, I was originally thinking of comparing actual fossil evidence , before the entry into Europe, between HNS and HSS. The evidence after 45,000 BC is usually argued by both sides as to whose accomplishments it was. Frankly, I thought I'd pulled a fast one because HSS evidence prior to his possible comingling with HSS is not very spectacular.

But an article like this was great Cognito. I appreciate posting thoughts on it. I'm sure I haven't convinced anyone of anything but it's a fun exercise.

[Cognito]

... it is highly likely that the Neanderthal had a gait somewhat different from that of Modern Man. It is our opinion that this gait was of the dominant ipsilateral type with perhaps some gross secondary counterbalance of the upper limbs; the upper limbs probably did not take the dynamic counterbalancing role that they do in Modern Man.

All these elements would naturally have reduced the mobility of the joint and hindered the length of the stride while breaking the cycle of alternate motion of contralateral walking. This further supports the concept of a dominant ipsilateral gait throughout pre-human history, from the Australopithecines to the Neanderthal.

The author is also saying that Neanderthals must have walked in a rigid and one-sided motion as opposed to a full range of counter-balancing motion. As a result, if Neanderthals could run at all, any HSS could easily outrun them. Kind of like the taunt, "Your Mama dresses you funny and you ain't got wheels!" The author further goes on to state a vastly different cerebral cortex and cerebellum structure goes hand in hand with this difference. His explanation of the hip muscle arrangement in the HSN indicates a biped built for power, but not for speed. Run circles around the guy, but if he gets a hand on you, he'll break you in half like a twig. Then again, use an atlatl ... it's safer!

These aren't insignificant conclusions. If the average HSS male could run at a rate of 20mph while the average HSN could maybe do half that for a limited time as opposed to hours, there was a tremendous advantage to being a HSS. It gives HSS a vastly greater hunting range and adaptability in addition to an edge in long distance communication between tribal groups. W/A will tell you that "runners" were the mail service in the Americas before the introduction of the horse. Natives who were "runners" could also run down their prey since many animals do not have the stamina of a marathon athlete.

[Beagle]

This further supports the concept of a dominant ipsilateral gait throughout pre-human history, from the Australopithecines to the Neanderthal.

My previous thoughts were only regarding HNS intelligence. But as you and the author point out, there were physical differences.

My problem with the above quote is that for some strange reason, the author left out HSS. For a lot of people who might read this now and in the future, lets define what is meant by a dominant ipsilateral gait. We all know that we have a dominant side. We are usually right or left handed. This also applies to the legs. Ipsilateral simply means one-sided.

So - as most people know, if we start walking in a straight line, without any directional reference, we will eventually walk in a large circle. We are like that today.

The author seems to suggest that it was more pronounced in Neandertal, and that may well be true. But as for speed, HNS had that going up and down the mountainous terrain of Europe. On a flat plain, like a savannah, he would surely lose out to a straighter-boned, more gracile form.

A forensic pathologist or physical Anthropologist today can readily identify a skeleton as being European. It will have slightly curved femurs among other things.

As to how a fight would come out, I don't know. So far there is no evidence of hostility or warfare. Even in the Levant where the two lived side by side for approx. 20,000 yrs., ending about 95,000 BC. In that case H. Sapiens vanished.

These physical differences are interpreted in many ways depending on the interpreter. But HNS was highly successful. He lived for 210,000yrs. Most scientists say HSS has been here for 120,000.

BTW Cognito, I don't mean to be rude, if I say anything that doesn't sound right, let me know and I'll post the evidence. Otherwise I'll be lazy.
If we get into any fossil sites I'll be sure to.

[Beagle]

The author further goes on to state a vastly different cerebral cortex and cerebellum structure goes hand in hand with this difference.

I can't fathom where he is coming from with that thinking Cognito. I'll go find an earlier post I made about HNS facial structure and braincase and post it.

I'm going to have to do quite a search on this guy and any correlated thought others might have. I've never heard this particular argument before, and referring to my above post, it seems incredible that he would think that. I'll go lookin'.

[Beagle]

Cognito, my befuddlement is over. The author, Mr. Spilman, appears to be a chiropractor. So he is talking quite knowledgeably about bone structure and spinal nerves etc. but I think he goes way too far with some of his conclusions.

Without wanting to be insulting to the man, I don't think he's really up on his evolutionary paleontology. (this being said by someone who isn't either).

I respect his opinion. But I simply disagree with him.

[Cognito]

As to how a fight would come out, I don't know. So far there is no evidence of hostility or warfare. Even in the Levant where the two lived side by side for approx. 20,000 yrs., ending about 95,000 BC. In that case H. Sapiens vanished.

These physical differences are interpreted in many ways depending on the interpreter. But HNS was highly successful. He lived for 210,000yrs. Most scientists say HSS has been here for 120,000.

BTW Cognito, I don't mean to be rude, if I say anything that doesn't sound right, let me know and I'll post the evidence. Otherwise I'll be lazy.
If we get into any fossil sites I'll be sure to.

Beags, you're not being rude. I agree with you. There is no shred of evidence that there was any hostility between HSN and HSS. I agree that HSN was built differently and probably could not motor as fast as HSS, but sometimes you need brute power over finesse, right? I don't believe the differences in cortex and cerebellum means that HSN was any less intelligent than HSS ... but I am wondering if their type of intelligence was different somehow. (thinking out loud)