Archaeologica.org

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

stan wrote:It took a very short time for the North Americans to be decimated by European diseases, but the Neans seem to have held on much longer.
If they lived to reproduce over many generations, that may argue against disease. I don't know, though.

You forget homo (whether HS or HN) was extremely thin on the ground. There were maybe a few tens of thousands of individuals, all told. And those were very distributed over the landmasses. So they hardly ever met others. Years could go by without seeing another tribe (HS or HN). So any disease spreading would be extremely slow too.

I was about to say the same thing. Since they were far fewer and very widespread it would take a very long time for disease to spread. I have heard the climate change theory too and thought it lacked something. The disease thing makes more sense.

[double entry removed]

Frank Harrist wrote:

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

stan wrote:It took a very short time for the North Americans to be decimated by European diseases, but the Neans seem to have held on much longer.
If they lived to reproduce over many generations, that may argue against disease. I don't know, though.

You forget homo (whether HS or HN) was extremely thin on the ground. There were maybe a few tens of thousands of individuals, all told. And those were very distributed over the landmasses. So they hardly ever met others. Years could go by without seeing another tribe (HS or HN). So any disease spreading would be extremely slow too.

I was about to say the same thing. Since they were far fewer and very widespread it would take a very long time for disease to spread. I have heard the climate change theory too and thought it lacked something. The disease thing makes more sense.

However, Frank, it is improbable that it was just this or that cause. It was much more probably a combination of factors. Disease could indeed be one of them. Even an important one. But only ONE of many!

Yeah you're probably right. As with most things like that, there is more than one cause. People always want to pin it down to one specific thing, but it almost never is just one thing.

Neanderthal should have been invincible. So just how are we here, and Neanderthal is extinct?

first off, you would have to prove that neanderthals actually are real and not skeletons left over from the pre-flood civilization.

second, you would have to prove that they actually acted in the manner as indicated by scientists. since there is no eyewitness nor any written record available to corroborate the findings, you really don't know what took place and it would be foolish to believe conjecture.

third, you would have to prove the mobilityof each group of people. a few skeletons in africa do not prove it to be the cradle of civilization, those skeletons could have moved into africa.

fourth, you have to stop infering what took place as there are too many varibles to influence the presence of skeletons and pottery. their presence only indicates their existence, since we do not know the people, did not converse with them, can not read their writings; we have no idea of their motivations, their feelings or their movements. to say otherwise is simply just a big guess.

Hey! Did I see Tom Cruise just sneaking out your backdoor? What gives? You hidin' that yummy piece o'ass of his in there?

I try never to think bad of anyone and think personal attacks are wrong
I may be banned for this too , but it has to be said
Arch ....you are certifiably nuts

I may be banned for this too , but it has to be said
Arch ....you are certifiably nuts

no, i just like busting your chops and point out that theoretically, you do not have the answers but love to hypothesis because it is fun.

I may be banned for this too , but it has to be said
Arch ....you are certifiably nuts

No lo contendere

no, i just like busting your chops and point out that theoretically, you do not have the answers but love to hypothesis because it is fun.

"To hypothesis"... Is that a new verb?

Another perfectly good subject shot to hell by some nut case who likes to call himself or herself (whichever) an archaeologist. And an all-knowing one at that.

To hypothesis"... Is that a new verb?

Don't cha no nuttin. After you get through hypothesising you come up with a hypothesize and then you share it with the rest of us.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

stan wrote:It took a very short time for the North Americans to be decimated by European diseases, but the Neans seem to have held on much longer.
If they lived to reproduce over many generations, that may argue against disease. I don't know, though.

You forget homo (whether HS or HN) was extremely thin on the ground. There were maybe a few tens of thousands of individuals, all told. And those were very distributed over the landmasses. So they hardly ever met others. Years could go by without seeing another tribe (HS or HN). So any disease spreading would be extremely slow too.

Exactly right. Moreover, given the small nature of Neanderthal bands how much of a push in the other direction would it take to cut cut their reproductive rate to the point where the clan folded?

One could almost envision this as a case of a Cro-Magnon advance preceeded by a bio-weapon barrage.

Don't forget the business of the smaller birth canals of the Neans.


I understand your argument about the low population, but back to the disease theory...we are talking thousands of years, not just one life time. Don't you think it is possible that there were annual get-togethers when things such as germs could be exchanged? Or raids for women. Or
maybe migration periods in which people might have banded together?

(BTW) upon what do you base the idea of the small populations?

Barracuda, "the human species [– i.e. homo sapiens –] originated in the African savanna between 100 and 200 thousand years ago" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens). The most 'precise' estimate today is that HS rose – in Africa – about 190,000 years BC.
Many hominid species had 'out-of-africa' waves. So did HS. We now know – from DNA analysis – that HS had 2 major 'out-of-africa' waves: 120,000 years BC, and 72,000 years BC.
So HS coexisted for almost 150,000 years with HN! Albeit in different continents for 80% - 90% of that time.

A very interesting point. I should have written that Neanderthals survived for 100,000 years in EUROPE before HSS finally took root there.

How ethnocentric of me!

OK. This is childish schoolboy fantasy, but....

In a one on one physical confrontation between HNS and HSS, who would most likely survive?

HNS was stronger, but HSS had the reach. Maybe a critical advantage fighting with war clubs and thrusting spears?

Perhaps HSS had a faster metabolism, and quicker reflexes?

And why haven't we found any physical evidence of physical confrontation between the two species? Is it out there waiting to be found?