Archaeologica.org

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic ... ERTHAL.xml

Previously it was thought that this spread took place between 43,000 and 36,000 years ago, but the re-evaluated data suggests that it actually happened between 46,000 and 41,000 years ago -- starting earlier and moving faster.

"Evidently the native Neanderthal populations of Europe succumbed much more rapidly to competition from the expanding biologically and behaviorally modern populations than previous estimates have generally assumed," Mellars wrote.

I posted this yesterday under 'Radiocarbon dates review rewrites European prehistory'.

That only makes the question 'How? What – precisely – happened?' all the more pressing, doesn't it? What say you, Bob?
Do we have any idea what may have happened? Any sensible sounding theories that you know of?

One theory I have not heard, that makes sense to me, is that modern humans carried some sort of disease that he Neanderthal had no immunity for....

I have read studies that showed Neanderthals were just as efficient hunters and modern humans

I've never found a good answer as to why the Neanderthal died out

quote:
Powerful, better adapted to the cold, and perhaps just as intelligent... Neanderthal should have been invincible. So just how are we here, and Neanderthal is extinct?

And the answer given was
quote:
It seems that something much more random could have played a significant role. About 45,000 years ago, the climate of Europe went through a burst of very sudden switches between warm and cold conditions that would have transformed the Neanderthals' environment.

The forests on which they depended began to recede, giving way to open plains. On these plains, the Neanderthal thrusting spear and ambush strategy wouldn't have worked. So Neanderthals retreated with the forests, their population falling as their hunting grounds shrank.

This doesn't make sense to me , apart from the fact there was planty of forests left in Europe, Neanderthals as already stated were as intelligent as HS on fact their cranium was 20% larger . Man's intelligence has meant he could adapt to changing climate and enviroments and is a problem solver .So if Neanderthals had the same intelligence and a better physique why did he not adapt ??

This doesn't make sense to me , apart from the fact there was planty of forests left in Europe, Neanderthals as already stated were as intelligent as HS on fact their cranium was 20% larger . Man's intelligence has meant he could adapt to changing climate and enviroments and is a problem solver .So if Neanderthals had the same intelligence and a better physique why did he not adapt ??

I have wondered about this,too. You would think they would be able to migrate and adapt to changing conditions.
I mean, they survived for hundreds of thousands of years.
And look at how HS has adapted all over the world, from the tropics to the arctic.

It has been suggested that that their linguistic abilities were limited (based on the hyoid bone), and maybe they were genetically just not as smart or creative as HS. Although some must have interbred with HS, it seems possible to me that, due to their appearance and maybe other things that made them repugnant to HS, they were eventually killed off. I know there's no evidence for this...not battlefields filled with
Neanderthal skeletons...but "racism" could have been a factor.

There was a show on the Science Channel (I think that was the one) just the other day about early man. According to the researcher, I say that because they did not tell where they got the information, the decline of the Neandertals had a lot to do with reproduction. They just weren't producing offspring as quickly as needed, also they had a very high rate of infant mortality (don't know how they figured that one out.) It seems that the sites they uncovered shows that the number of people in a group kept getting smaller as time went on. Guess fewer adults would lead you to think that they must not have been having children to replace them. At least it sounds better than saying that the H-sapians killed them off.

The program was called "The Rise of Man" and it was on the Science Channel this past Monday, unfortunately I only got the last hour.

Did the better "man" really win? Or did HS outlast Neanderthal because of some fluke?

After all, HS has only been around for about 45,000 years. Neanderthal man survived on this planet for about three times that long.

We naturally look at the issue from a bias point of view.

Just wondering out loud.....

Barracuda wrote:One theory I have not heard, that makes sense to me, is that modern humans carried some sort of disease that he Neanderthal had no immunity for....

I have read studies that showed Neanderthals were just as efficient hunters and modern humans

That could make a lot of sense, Barracuda. Now we only need some supporting evidence...
Same as with a holocaust. We know they happen. We just don't know if the Neanderthal's demise can be attributed to one.

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:I posted this yesterday under 'Radiocarbon dates review rewrites European prehistory'.

Sorry. Missed it.

My bad.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:That only makes the question 'How? What – precisely – happened?' all the more pressing, doesn't it? What say you, Bob?
Do we have any idea what may have happened? Any sensible sounding theories that you know of?

I think Barracuda has hit on the most logical answer...although the lack of soft tissue remains will mean it will probably never be provable.

Migrating humans brought a disease organism that Neanderthals had no immunity against. Some mechanism, fleas, mosquitos, etc. was found to spread it and it was off to the races.

There are documented examples. European colonists brought diseases which did far more to wipe out the Indians than swords and muskets could ever hope to manage.

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.

Minimalist wrote:

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:I posted this yesterday under 'Radiocarbon dates review rewrites European prehistory'.

Sorry. Missed it.

My bad.

No probs.

Barracuda wrote:[...]After all, HS has only been around for about 45,000 years. Neanderthal man survived on this planet for about three times that long.[...]

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.

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.