Archaeologica.org

If the person was affected by the disease either directly or indirectly Min I think the evidence will show up in their teeth at least.
Many diseases will leave evidence on the bones though.
Syphilis, TB, Polio, Malnutrition, Leprosy, all certainly mark the skeleton of survivors or those that die from them later.

Roy.

Syphilis, TB, Polio, Malnutrition, Leprosy,

Those are all long-term conditions. I was under the impression that typhus killed you relatively quickly....or you recovered.

But it's a good point and I wonder if anyone has even bothered looking for disease markers on Neanderthal teeth?

As you say Min, long term conditions. A quick killer would normally mean that people fled.
Look at the Black Death in Europe, which was far more densely populated than in HSN's time, so fleeing spread the disease, but in Africa the population lived for many years with outbreaks of high mortality diseases by fleeing till the rising population prevented it.
Also a disease that kills very quickly normally fails to spread very far in thinly populated areas as the people die before they can flee very far.

Roy.

Exactly right. That's why a carrier who is immune himself (or herself...a la Typhoid Mary) is necessary.

The Europeans who brought small pox and measels to the new world did not climb off the boats and drop dead on the beach.

And the small pox mortalities in America would seem to be replicated with HSN only if HSS were the carriers.
I might be wrong here but I believe the native Americans recorded the Small Pox epidemics, but there seems to be similar 'artistic' reference to any disease in HSN records if they were the cave painters.
The spread of European diseases amongst aboriginal populations would seem to be a fertile field for investigation. For example, as far as I know nothing similar happened in Australasia. I wonder why?
I still prefer the interbreeding idea Min for the reasons I have stated.
The problems both ideas fit what actually know.

Roy.

But it's a good point and I wonder if anyone has even bothered looking for disease markers on Neanderthal teeth?

Min, the answer to your question is yes for bones. I doubt that any of the diseases mentioned would leave traces on tooth enamel.

I believe the pandemic approach has merit, but in a different manner than generally proposed. In other words:

1. HN represents a European-based, static population.
2. HS is consistently immigrating into HN territory bringing new diseases.

A portion of HN and HS die off every time they meet due to a lack of resistance from the others' diseases. Soon, immunity develops in both populations. However, HS keeps introducing new immigrants and diseases, all the while offsetting their population loss. HN diseases can only affect a small subset of the overall HS population (that which is confined to Europe), therefore an extinction cannot occur to HS.

It was genocide by attrition over time.

I still prefer the interbreeding idea Min for the reasons I have stated.

There a program coming up Sunday called The Neanderthal Code which says that it will consider exactly that idea. I'll record it and if you want it I can e-mail it to you

Please Min.

Roy.

Here's a link.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/e ... 8/Overview

Minimalist wrote:

I still prefer the interbreeding idea Min for the reasons I have stated.

There a program coming up Sunday called The Neanderthal Code which says that it will consider exactly that idea. I'll record it and if you want it I can e-mail it to you

Can you put me on that mailing list too please, Min?

Of course.

Researchers have discovered that Neanderthals had exactly the same version of the FoxP2 gene, which is associated with the use of language, as modern humans — a similarity that would be difficult to explain if the two groups evolved separately. The discovery also raises the possibility that modern humans acquired the language gene by interbreeding with Neanderthals. If that proves to be true, it would mean that Neanderthals not only were our long-ago relatives, but contributed an important part of what it means to be human.

It's taken 50 yrs but it looks as though the scientific community has finally caught up with me!
Better late than never.
Mind you, when you look at some of the dafter ideas that they have promulgated over the years...

Roy.

The FOXP2 gene and Brain Allele gene still need to be explained. These occur in sections other than mtDNA and have been conveniently ignored by some scientists. If Neanderthals provided sapiens with speech as well as big brains, Digit will finally be vindicated.

Not sure I'll live that long Cog, look how long it's taken just to be recognised as something that didn't go around beating Dinosaurs over the head with a large club!

Roy.

It's taken 50 yrs but it looks as though the scientific community has finally caught up with me!

While the scientific community appears to be catching up with you, the artistic community still has a way to travel. My remaining bitch is the portrayal of HNs as hairy and unkempt while at the same time we are told by scientists that their hygeine was excellent.

HNs possessed relatively advanced cutting tools yet they could not shave? What about tattoos or braided hair? Gimme a break.

Decent hunters relied on stealth and communication. I am proposing that they possessed both traits with hunters' clothing a snug fit, hair brought back in a pony tail or braided, and whole-body camoflauge in addition to tattoos for status. Do I need to retain an artist here?

Min, could you do something about this?