What happened to neanderthal man?

[DogmaHunter]

One useful thing I saw a few years ago is that hypothesis that the Neanderthals genetic traits, which included strength superior to ours, and intelligence similar to ours, did not have our social cooperation.

So....it's like how a lone wolf, even a mighty wolf of great strength and experience and agility, would be no match, easily defeated, by band of lesser wolves.

So, our own ancestors easily defeated the Neanderthals in most any battle, by cooperation.

Nonsense. There is plenty of evidence of social behaviour in Neanderthals. Burial sites and evidence that they cared for their wounded. There is this one find of neaderthal remains with clear signs that the individual's leg had been broken at one time during its life. The only way that individual could have survived long enough for it to heel like it did, was if it was cared for by the rest of the tribe.

In different words, we are better killers than they were.

So, we slaughtered them, enslaved them, interbred some, but mostly just wiped them out, pushed them out of good territories, probably at times murdered them en masse, genocides occasionally (just a guess).

There is little to no evidence of such inter-humanoid battles.
There is however evidence of homo sapiens being more efficient hunters.

For example, I remember this one article which spoke about how Neaderthals did make spears, but didn't actually throw them. Their tactics were pretty much centered around close-combat and brute force. Whereas homo sapiens strategy is more about stamina, trickery, traps, ballistics, etc. Our ancestors actually threw their spears, they developed bows and arrows, they developed nets for trapping and they tired their pray by making it run for long periods.

In short: sapiens strategy was a lot safer for the hunters.

So why did Neanderthals disappear? I don't think you can point to any single reason. More then likely it will be a vast collection of things, including stuff like climate change (and the resulting changes in migration patterns, vegetation etc), extra competition from sapiens, etc.

One can also ask the question if they truelly did disappear... Because at least a part of them "survives" in our very own DNA.

I'ld rather say that they "full blooded" neanderthals went extinct, for most likely a vast collection of reasons.

 

[Shemjaza]

They lived more on hunting then gathering.

It's possible they were less creative then us. They had a stable tool kit for many thousands of years, then only started using new tools and jewelry once they started to overlap with Homo sapiens.

Also, I suspect their very thick bones and large brains mean that the bred slower then sapiens.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I was actually referring to homo sapien violence against the Neanderthals, and see, I'm using the presumption that just like the great apes, every last variety of the genus human (homo) are each and all violent.

But... all the great apes are not violent. Bonobos are particularly peaceful.

I would be (pleasantly) surprised if any of all the variety of our genus included any much less violent variety.

Given the outcomes and evidence for various interactions, I'd infer that our species was the most territorial in the genus Homo.

I suppose this view could be a little loaded in that it makes us seem red in tooth and claw, less intrinsically good, or at least more mixed in character than many would like to see us.

Pfft, given how much we kill each other, I'd say it is obvious we are a pretty dysfunctional social species.

Again, I'd be happy to find out my older view before I read all those articles was correct -- that we were a more happy and peaceful species. That was the view I had to give up on.

To be fair, it doesn't seem like the other members of the genus Homo died out because our species killed them off directly. More a matter of competing for food sources as our species entered their territory, as is evidenced by signs of Neanderthals resorting to cannibalism. A portion of our modern population retains some Neanderthal DNA, as well as that of one other species I do not currently recall, so not all interactions were necessarily violent.

 

[JackRT]

It could also have been a virulent infectious disease like smallpox that Homo Sapiens introduced.

 

[Halbhh]

Nonsense. There is plenty of evidence of social behaviour in Neanderthals. Burial sites and evidence that they cared for their wounded. There is this one find of neaderthal remains with clear signs that the individual's leg had been broken at one time during its life. The only way that individual could have survived long enough for it to heel like it did, was if it was cared for by the rest of the tribe.



There is little to no evidence of such inter-humanoid battles.
There is however evidence of homo sapiens being more efficient hunters.

For example, I remember this one article which spoke about how Neaderthals did make spears, but didn't actually throw them. Their tactics were pretty much centered around close-combat and brute force. Whereas homo sapiens strategy is more about stamina, trickery, traps, ballistics, etc. Our ancestors actually threw their spears, they developed bows and arrows, they developed nets for trapping and they tired their pray by making it run for long periods.

In short: sapiens strategy was a lot safer for the hunters.

So why did Neanderthals disappear? I don't think you can point to any single reason. More then likely it will be a vast collection of things, including stuff like climate change (and the resulting changes in migration patterns, vegetation etc), extra competition from sapiens, etc.

One can also ask the question if they truelly did disappear... Because at least a part of them "survives" in our very own DNA.

I'ld rather say that they "full blooded" neanderthals went extinct, for most likely a vast collection of reasons.

That we'd slaughter each other but not Neanderthals seems a stretch. But go ahead and think as you wish. That hypothesis about Neanderthals being less cooperative (but note that "less" is not the same as none) isn't mine, and you can look it up and learn more on it if you like, but that would not be dogmatic. For me, it's merely a hypothesis. Perhaps they were cooperative after all, but we were just more agile. Many hypotheses are possible, even the notion another person has here that we killed few Neanderthals, which I think of as a very long shot idea. Our history suggests we'd be pretty aggressive. Maybe more so than you know about.

 

[Halbhh]

But... all the great apes are not violent. Bonobos are particularly peaceful.



Given the outcomes and evidence for various interactions, I'd infer that our species was the most territorial in the genus Homo.


Pfft, given how much we kill each other, I'd say it is obvious we are a pretty dysfunctional social species.



To be fair, it doesn't seem like the other members of the genus Homo died out because our species killed them off directly. More a matter of competing for food sources as our species entered their territory, as is evidenced by signs of Neanderthals resorting to cannibalism. A portion of our modern population retains some Neanderthal DNA, as well as that of one other species I do not currently recall, so not all interactions were necessarily violent.

Multiple causes seem a given, as already quoted earlier above. (Btw, are bonobos great apes? Not really important, but they are smaller. The thing is we have evidence of violence in most types of larger primates, right?) The hypotheses that other varieties of humans were far less violent, and/or significantly less territorial, those both seem unlikely to me, but I'd be happy to include/take in evidence otherwise. If you hypothesize we are more deadly, that's what I think likely, a hypothesis I like but only because of indications I'm aware of so far.

 

[Nithavela]

There is a lot of information about neanderthal man. I would like to look at the artifacts: "an object made by a human being". Around 40,000 years ago we find sowing needles, fishing hooks and fishing nets. This is when man first came up out of Africa because they were now able to adapt to a colder ecosystem. One of the great mysteries of early human evolution is what happened to extinct hominin groups like the Neanderthals and Denisovans. These were human groups who lived in Europe and Asia for hundreds of thousands of years before Homo sapiens started streaming out of Africa and taking over the world.

This is a clear example of a species leaving one eco system and adapting to become a part of another biodiverse eco system.

Genesis 1:28 "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Knowing humanity, we propably beat them to death.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Multiple causes seem a given, as already quoted earlier above. (Btw, are bonobos great apes? Not really important, but they are smaller. The thing is we have evidence of violence in most types of larger primates, right?

Great apes include bonobos (which are nearly the same size as chimpanzees) and orangutans, both of which are very peaceful creatures. Gorillas can also be relatively peaceful. "Great ape" is a colloquial term for organisms in the family Hominidae.

I don't think there is any correlation between body size and aggressive behavior in primates. Primate is a very broad order that includes apes, monkeys, and lemurs.

The idea other varieties of humans were less violent, less territorial seems unlikely to me, but I'd be happy to include evidence otherwise.

Given how xenophobic our species can be, I would imagine there would be more evidence of fighting between our species and other members of the genus Homo if those species were equally territorial. You know, bodies with bones scratched by arrows and spears, that sort of thing.

 

[Halbhh]

Great apes include bonobos (which are nearly the same size as chimpanzees) and orangutans, both of which are very peaceful creatures. Gorillas can also be relatively peaceful. "Great ape" is a colloquial term for organisms in the family Hominidae.

I don't think there is any correlation between body size and aggressive behavior in primates. Primate is a very broad order that includes apes, monkeys, and lemurs.


Given how xenophobic our species can be, I would imagine there would be more evidence of fighting between our species and other members of the genus Homo if those species were equally territorial. You know, bodies with bones scratched by arrows and spears, that sort of thing.

Seems we agree on all you said. It's basic if you watched the Jane Goodall stuff to know that "Gorillas can also be relatively peaceful" etc., and....so can humans, which is a very good thing, eh? About bones scratched by weapons, it seems like I've read about so many finds of ancient bones, not only sapien, showing death by violence, as evidence by various indications on the bones. But again, it's merely a hypothesis for me that we largely wiped out Neanderthals like we later would wolves. I'd be perfectly happy to get any really convincing evidence that we most routinely lived in peace with them, instead of simply at least occasionally (at minimum), as is already clear from interbreeding (regardless of whether the individuals were slaves or stolen babies, etc.).

I was looking to give you a link on the gorilla violence though (just in case you hadn't seen that kind of stuff), and here's a popular level article in the next post.

 

[Halbhh]

Though I've read a lot more than just a few popular articles, this one is an easy to read summary of some stuff --

Chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest relatives, and gorillas are only a little further away. But when it comes to violence, there are clear differences between the species. While bonobos are known to live in fairly harmonious societies, the same cannot be said either for us or for chimps.

Humans and chimps are both known to actively seek out and attack others. Our propensity for violence is believed to be part of our evolutionary story.
...(continues)
Seemingly peaceful gorillas join 'mobs' and beat up rivals

 

[Halbhh]

Great apes include bonobos (which are nearly the same size as chimpanzees) and orangutans, both of which are very peaceful creatures. Gorillas can also be relatively peaceful. "Great ape" is a colloquial term for organisms in the family Hominidae.

I don't think there is any correlation between body size and aggressive behavior in primates. Primate is a very broad order that includes apes, monkeys, and lemurs.


Given how xenophobic our species can be, I would imagine there would be more evidence of fighting between our species and other members of the genus Homo if those species were equally territorial. You know, bodies with bones scratched by arrows and spears, that sort of thing.

Also, even if often peaceful, one does wonder about the observed violence --

In contrast to the peaceful and affectionate behaviours she observed, Goodall also found an aggressive side of chimpanzee nature at Gombe Stream...
...
But perhaps more startling, and disturbing, was the tendency for aggression and violence within chimpanzee troops. Goodall observed dominant females deliberately killing the young of other females in the troop to maintain their dominance,[18] sometimes going as far as cannibalism.[19] She says of this revelation, "During the first ten years of the study I had believed […] that the Gombe chimpanzees were, for the most part, rather nicer than human beings. […] Then suddenly we found that chimpanzees could be brutal—that they, like us, had a darker side to their nature."[19] She described the 1974–1978 Gombe Chimpanzee War in her memoir, Through a Window: My Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe.
-- Wiki on Jane Goodall

From that Gombe War link --
Over the next four years, all six of the adult male members of the Kahama were killed by the Kasakela males.[5] Of the females from Kahama, one was killed, two went missing, and three were beaten and kidnapped by the Kasakela males.[5] The Kasakela then succeeded in taking over the Kahama's former territory

It's not that I am suggesting constant violence from sapiens against Neanderthals, but instead I'm guessing we sapiens acted back then as we do now -- occasional greatly brutal war and genocide. The Bonobos are notably unusual as you probably know.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Seems we agree on all you said. It's basic if you watched the Jane Goodall stuff to know that "Gorillas can also be relatively peaceful" etc., and....so can humans, which is a very good thing, eh? About bones scratched by weapons, it seems like I've read about so many finds of ancient bones, not only sapien, showing death by violence, as evidence by various indications on the bones. But again, it's merely a hypothesis for me that we largely wiped out Neanderthals like we later would wolves. I'd be perfectly happy to get any really convincing evidence that we most routinely lived in peace with them, instead of simply at least occasionally (at minimum), as is already clear from interbreeding (regardless of whether the individuals were slaves or stolen babies, etc.).

I was looking to give you a link on the gorilla violence though (just in case you hadn't seen that kind of stuff), and here's a popular level article in the next post.

Not saying early humans routinely coexisted with Neanderthals. The smaller frontal lobes of the latter (similar sized brains overall, but Neanderthals are though to have had much larger occipital lobes) reduced their social behavior capacity greatly, and their distorted, high pitched voices would have made verbal communication difficult, if they were capable of it. Probably limited interaction in passing.

It's interesting to note that we have no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, which means that pairings of male humans and female Neanderthals either could not produce children, or produced infertile ones. Meaning that the Neanderthal and Homo sapiens hybrids that contributed to modern human DNA were born to human mothers.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Also, even if often peaceful, one does wonder about the observed violence --

In contrast to the peaceful and affectionate behaviours she observed, Goodall also found an aggressive side of chimpanzee nature at Gombe Stream...
...
But perhaps more startling, and disturbing, was the tendency for aggression and violence within chimpanzee troops. Goodall observed dominant females deliberately killing the young of other females in the troop to maintain their dominance,[18] sometimes going as far as cannibalism.[19] She says of this revelation, "During the first ten years of the study I had believed […] that the Gombe chimpanzees were, for the most part, rather nicer than human beings. […] Then suddenly we found that chimpanzees could be brutal—that they, like us, had a darker side to their nature."[19] She described the 1974–1978 Gombe Chimpanzee War in her memoir, Through a Window: My Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe.
-- Wiki on Jane Goodall

From that Gombe War link --
Over the next four years, all six of the adult male members of the Kahama were killed by the Kasakela males.[5] Of the females from Kahama, one was killed, two went missing, and three were beaten and kidnapped by the Kasakela males.[5] The Kasakela then succeeded in taking over the Kahama's former territory

It's not that I am suggesting constant violence from sapiens against Neanderthals, but instead I'm guessing we sapiens acted back then as we do now -- occasional greatly brutal war and genocide. The Bonobos are notably unusual as you probably know.

If chimpanzees are war hawks, then bonobos are peace loving hippies. They both are at the extreme ends of the violence spectrum. Most social vertebrates show caution, but not outright aggression, towards other members of their species unless pushed to do so. They defend territory by driving the strangers away rather than outright killing them.

When it comes to primates, social aggression can even be flexible to reduce the occurrence of detrimental injury. For example, howler monkeys slap each other rather than scratch, because scratches greatly increase the risk of parasite infection. Screwworms native to their area would have their eggs hatch in such wounds, and would proceed to devour enough flesh to easily kill the monkeys, so they have to avoid scratching, least they kill each other.

 

[Halbhh]

If chimpanzees are war hawks, then bonobos are peace loving hippies. They both are at the extreme ends of the violence spectrum. Most social vertebrates show caution, but not outright aggression, towards other members of their species unless pushed to do so. They defend territory by driving the strangers away rather than outright killing them.

When it comes to primates, social aggression can even be flexible to reduce the occurrence of detrimental injury. For example, howler monkeys slap each other rather than scratch, because scratches greatly increase the risk of parasite infection. Screwworms native to their area would have their eggs hatch in such wounds, and would proceed to devour enough flesh to easily kill the monkeys, so they have to avoid scratching, least they kill each other.

What can we think about the Gombe Chimpanzee War described?

It's not a driving away. I'd guess (hypothesize) wars like that happen occasionally, just like they do for humans. How occasional? Don't know. Less often than us? Good question.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What can we think about the Gombe Chimpanzee War described?

That it's interesting that the ultra-violent chimpanzees and the super peaceful bonobos are our closest genetic relatives alive today. Genetically similar, yet extremely contrasting social structures.

It's not a driving away. I'd guess (hypothesize) wars like that happen occasionally, just like they do for humans. How occasional? Don't know. Less often than us? Good question.

Wars that span years are almost unheard of in organisms aside from humans, which is why the Gombe Chimpanzee War is so notable. It's made even more interesting by the fact that it was an internal war; after the leader died, the group split into two, and those two groups went to war. It's also the only documented chimpanzee war, and it happened from 1974-78, so I doubt these types of conflicts are common.

However, territorial disputes are common, and do often result in deaths. Chimps tend to cannibalize dead enemies, and the reason why is uncertain.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That we'd slaughter each other but not Neanderthals seems a stretch. But go ahead and think as you wish.

I'm merely objecting to the idea that neanderthals went extinct as a result of doing battle with homo sapiens.

That hypothesis about Neanderthals being less cooperative (but note that "less" is not the same as none) isn't mine, and you can look it up and learn more on it if you like, but that would not be dogmatic.

I'm just saying.... Burial sites demonstrate culture. A social culture.
Evidence like a broken leg which clearly was cared for, confirm a social and cooperative structure.

Our history suggests we'd be pretty aggressive. Maybe more so than you know about.

Aren't all territorial creatures, aggressive in that sense?
I presume, for example, that Neanderthals wouldn't have appriciated it that much either, that a new humanoid species settled into their hunting grounds.

Like always in evolution, it's a fierce competition. And in times of "rapid" environmental change, it's the most flexible / adaptable that will win the arms race.

We survived. Neanderthals did not. For most likely a wide variaty of reasons.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Multiple causes seem a given, as already quoted earlier above. (Btw, are bonobos great apes? Not really important, but they are smaller. The thing is we have evidence of violence in most types of larger primates, right?)

It's a funny story actually.
Bonobo's and chimps are very close cousins. Nevertheless, chimps are big, strong and fiersome creatures. While bonobo's are smaller and rather playfull. Why?

Apparantly, the "mother population" at some point got split due to geological formations which cut right through their habitat. As it turns out, most of the dangerous enemies of that species, lived on one side of this split. Chimps would evolve on that same side.

The side where bonobo's evolved, was (for them) some kind of paradise compared to where the chimps were.

The hypotheses that other varieties of humans were far less violent, and/or significantly less territorial, those both seem unlikely to me, but I'd be happy to include/take in evidence otherwise. If you hypothesize we are more deadly, that's what I think likely, a hypothesis I like but only because of indications I'm aware of so far.

I have no real reason to assume such...

 

[Halbhh]

It's a funny story actually.
Bonobo's and chimps are very close cousins. Nevertheless, chimps are big, strong and fiersome creatures. While bonobo's are smaller and rather playfull. Why?

Apparantly, the "mother population" at some point got split due to geological formations which cut right through their habitat. As it turns out, most of the dangerous enemies of that species, lived on one side of this split. Chimps would evolve on that same side.

The side where bonobo's evolved, was (for them) some kind of paradise compared to where the chimps were.



I have no real reason to assume such...

Ok. Wonder if you have seen details as I pasted into posts #70 and #71 above? The main stuff I'm considering isn't just these though, but also a lot of news articles over the years showing ancient human genus bones found with evidence of death by violence.

Perhaps by now you notice I'm anything but dogmatic, but my viewpoint is I think it unlikely we became violent more often (frequency) in times after we began to have more advanced weapons like bows (I'd guess or bet the frequency decreased, even while more deaths occurred during fights), but instead merely that we amplified our ability to kill more efficiently, only. My expectation is that before bows and larger armies we were typically violent in an average season or year, rarely a year of peace, often driving out competition with beatings that would result in deaths of some.

The Gombe Chimpanzee War with the excerpt in #71 above is a good model of how we acted is my guess.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok. Wonder if you have seen details as I pasted into posts #70 and #71 above? The main stuff I'm considering isn't just these though, but also a lot of news articles over the years showing ancient human genus bones found with evidence of death by violence.

Perhaps by now you notice I'm anything but dogmatic, but my viewpoint is I think it unlikely we became violent more often (frequency) in times after we began to have more advanced weapons like bows (I'd guess or bet the frequency decreased, even while more deaths occurred during fights), but instead merely that we amplified our ability to kill more efficiently, only. My expectation is that before bows and larger armies we were typically violent in an average season or year, rarely a year of peace, often driving out competition with beatings that would result in deaths of some.

The Gombe Chimpanzee War with the excerpt in #71 above is a good model of how we acted is my guess.

But that example doesn't work since the Gombe Chimpanzee war is closer to a civil war than any other sort of war.

 

[Halbhh]

But that example doesn't work since the Gombe Chimpanzee war is closer to a civil war than any other sort of war.

If you simply point out it's not enough evidence, I agree 100% -- it's not enough evidence to prove my current hypothesis.

Instead, it is more suggestive. We'd need more data.

We don't know enough, and at least many researchers wouldn't even be looking for such, and not being observant to find it; consider --

"“It was hands-down the most surprising and disturbing thing that I have ever seen in my years in the forest,” says Stacy Rosenbaum, who researches social behavior in gorillas. Seeing an entire group attack in coordination was totally unheard of..."
Mob violence observed in gorillas for the first time

It's like many just don't...expect...to see an innate, intrinsic capacity for cooperative violence.

I think we don't want to know that (* see note at bottom). We don't want to see our own selfs as innately able to be murderous, brutal, vicious.

We want it to not be true.

So it could be there is a reluctance to find it, possibly.

It's quite easy to take the true fact that if a group isn't too large and has no territorial competition, it will be peaceful.

But that isn't what happens over time in nature, but only temporarily. I think peaceful is always temporary, in untrammeled nature.


-----------
* - (This actually reminds me of the 2005-2010 housing bubble price collapse in the U.S., with many professionals, even at high levels (even in less clear language from those in the Federal Reserve) saying things much like a realtor even, such as "nobody saw it coming".
When the fact is that some already established, well known researchers saw it out ahead of time clearly, like Robert Shiller. Some could see it, and they spoke up, but most did not see it. Blind and deaf on that. They did not want to find out this fact of a price bubble.)