We are the champions ...

[Mock Turtle]

Neanderthals And Humans Were at War For Over 100,000 Years, Evidence Shows

Instead, for thousands of years, we must have tested their fighters, and for thousands of years, we kept losing. In weapons, tactics, strategy, we were fairly evenly matched. Neanderthals probably had tactical and strategic advantages. They'd occupied the Middle East for millennia, doubtless gaining intimate knowledge of the terrain, the seasons, how to live off the native plants and animals. In battle, their massive, muscular builds must have made them devastating fighters in close-quarters combat. Their huge eyes likely gave Neanderthals superior low-light vision, letting them manoeuvre in the dark for ambushes and dawn raids. Finally, the stalemate broke, and the tide shifted. We don't know why. It's possible the invention of superior ranged weapons – bows, spear-throwers, throwing clubs – let lightly-built Homo sapiens harass the stocky Neanderthals from a distance using hit-and-run tactics. Or perhaps better hunting and gathering techniques let sapiens feed bigger tribes, creating numerical superiority in battle. Even after primitive Homo sapiens broke out of Africa 200,000 years ago, it took over 150,000 years to conquer Neanderthal lands. In Israel and Greece, archaic Homo sapiens took ground only to fall back against Neanderthal counteroffensives, before a final offensive by modern Homo sapiens, starting 125,000 years ago, eliminated them. This wasn't a blitzkrieg, as one would expect if Neanderthals were either pacifists or inferior warriors, but a long war of attrition. Ultimately, we won. But this wasn't because they were less inclined to fight. In the end, we likely just became better at war than they were.

Was it really like this? (added to emphasize my doubt)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Neanderthals And Humans Were at War For Over 100,000 Years, Evidence Shows

Instead, for thousands of years, we must have tested their fighters, and for thousands of years, we kept losing. In weapons, tactics, strategy, we were fairly evenly matched. Neanderthals probably had tactical and strategic advantages. They'd occupied the Middle East for millennia, doubtless gaining intimate knowledge of the terrain, the seasons, how to live off the native plants and animals. In battle, their massive, muscular builds must have made them devastating fighters in close-quarters combat. Their huge eyes likely gave Neanderthals superior low-light vision, letting them manoeuvre in the dark for ambushes and dawn raids. Finally, the stalemate broke, and the tide shifted. We don't know why. It's possible the invention of superior ranged weapons – bows, spear-throwers, throwing clubs – let lightly-built Homo sapiens harass the stocky Neanderthals from a distance using hit-and-run tactics. Or perhaps better hunting and gathering techniques let sapiens feed bigger tribes, creating numerical superiority in battle. Even after primitive Homo sapiens broke out of Africa 200,000 years ago, it took over 150,000 years to conquer Neanderthal lands. In Israel and Greece, archaic Homo sapiens took ground only to fall back against Neanderthal counteroffensives, before a final offensive by modern Homo sapiens, starting 125,000 years ago, eliminated them. This wasn't a blitzkrieg, as one would expect if Neanderthals were either pacifists or inferior warriors, but a long war of attrition. Ultimately, we won. But this wasn't because they were less inclined to fight. In the end, we likely just became better at war than they were.

Was it really like this?

No, because there is no evidence for that. It is not evidence, it is a story claiming evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Neanderthals And Humans Were at War For Over 100,000 Years, Evidence Shows

Instead, for thousands of years, we must have tested their fighters, and for thousands of years, we kept losing. In weapons, tactics, strategy, we were fairly evenly matched. Neanderthals probably had tactical and strategic advantages. They'd occupied the Middle East for millennia, doubtless gaining intimate knowledge of the terrain, the seasons, how to live off the native plants and animals. In battle, their massive, muscular builds must have made them devastating fighters in close-quarters combat. Their huge eyes likely gave Neanderthals superior low-light vision, letting them manoeuvre in the dark for ambushes and dawn raids. Finally, the stalemate broke, and the tide shifted. We don't know why. It's possible the invention of superior ranged weapons – bows, spear-throwers, throwing clubs – let lightly-built Homo sapiens harass the stocky Neanderthals from a distance using hit-and-run tactics. Or perhaps better hunting and gathering techniques let sapiens feed bigger tribes, creating numerical superiority in battle. Even after primitive Homo sapiens broke out of Africa 200,000 years ago, it took over 150,000 years to conquer Neanderthal lands. In Israel and Greece, archaic Homo sapiens took ground only to fall back against Neanderthal counteroffensives, before a final offensive by modern Homo sapiens, starting 125,000 years ago, eliminated them. This wasn't a blitzkrieg, as one would expect if Neanderthals were either pacifists or inferior warriors, but a long war of attrition. Ultimately, we won. But this wasn't because they were less inclined to fight. In the end, we likely just became better at war than they were.

Was it really like this?

Early humans (crp-magnon) were not that lightly built. Bone structure was considerably more dense and evoled for strength. Besides their skulls being more dense than modern day humans the brain case was approximately 13% larger than today humans indicating they had larger brains. Did that large brain give them a strategic advantage over Neanderthal?

And if course it was not all war, about 4% of our DNA derives from mating with Neanderthal

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, because there is no evidence for that. It is not evidence, it is a story claiming evidence.

I tend to agree - and I also tend to see such in much of what we might like to project onto the past - given the sparsity of evidence we often base our assumptions on.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I tend to agree - and I also tend to see such in much of what we might like to project onto the past - given the sparsity of evidence we often base our assumptions on.

Example from war - you don't always win because of superior weapon, you win because of superior numbers and/or logistics.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Early humans (crp-magnon) were not that lightly built. Bone structure was considerably more dense and evoled for strength. Besides their skulls being more dense than modern day humans the brain case was approximately 13% larger than today humans indicating they had larger brains. Did that large brain give them a strategic advantage over Neanderthal?

And if course it was not all war, about 4% of our DNA derives from mating with Neanderthal

Were we in conflict at all with the Neanderthals - given that some of the evidence might come from animal interactions? If so, perhaps we were as 'choosy' as we have tended to be in the known past - what with conquered peoples and how we treated females of such. And larger brains doesn't necessarily imply more intelligence perhaps - smaller and more efficient?

I've no idea of course, but the previous view seemed to be that we inhabited different areas, didn't compete directly, and that the methods of H Sapiens worked better so as to make our survival more likely.

 

[ChristineM]

I tend to agree - and I also tend to see such in much of what we might like to project onto the past - given the sparsity of evidence we often base our assumptions on.

There is plenty of evidence about cro-magnon, not enough but enough to work with. It's one of the reasons we moved here, so i could indulge my hobby of crawling about in caves looking for cro-magnon artefacts. We have a very good museum of pre history much of which is dedicated to the period (see my avatar there)

But information about their interaction with Neanderthal is, as you say, sparse.

As an assdide, there is a Neanderthal burial site not to far away, i was asked to look at it and the artifacts, including Neanderthal pottery and skeletal remains. And got a severe ticking off for poking my finger in the eye socket of a skull, well its something you just have to do;-). I simply wanted to feel the bone but it looked kind of gross to the anthropologist.

 

[ChristineM]

Were we in conflict at all with the Neanderthals - given that some of the evidence might come from animal interactions? If so, perhaps we were as 'choosy' as we have tended to be in the known past - what with conquered peoples and how we treated females of such. And larger brains doesn't necessarily imply more intelligence perhaps - smaller and more efficient?

I've no idea of course, but the previous view seemed to be that we inhabited different areas, didn't compete directly, and that the methods of H Sapiens worked better so as to make our survival more likely.

The grave site i mentioned is dated 38000 years ago, cro magnon didnt arrive in the area untill about 35000 years ago so there is little chance of interaction.

Perhaps they saw what was coming and moved south through Spain . I understanding the last stronghold od Neanderthal was Gibraltar.

 

[Secret Chief]

This is all very well, but how does this involve Freddie Mercury?

 

[PureX]

Our women were better looking, so we just genetically assimilated them.

 

[Secret Chief]

Our women were better looking, so we just genetically assimilated them.

You're saying we assimilated via ugly women?

 

[PureX]

You're saying we assimilated via ugly women?

No, they didn't want to mate with their own women, so their genetic code got watered down and assimilated.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, they didn't want to mate with their own women, so their genetic code got watered down and assimilated.

Evidence?

 

[ChristineM]

No, they didn't want to mate with their own women, so their genetic code got watered down and assimilated.

Seems its our genetic code got diluted by around 4% as individuals. Add ill together and the human race carries about a fifth of the Neanderthal genetic code?

As to Neanderthal... Who knows?

 

[Secret Chief]

No, they didn't want to mate with their own women, so their genetic code got watered down and assimilated.

Ah. Got it.

 

[metis]

I tend to agree - and I also tend to see such in much of what we might like to project onto the past - given the sparsity of evidence we often base our assumptions on.

That's not how we really do this as there are different levels of uncertainty, and I say "uncertainty" as we always want to keep it open that somewhere along the line that we could be in error, large or small. We don't use "assumptions", or at least we're not supposed to, and any anthropologist who does as such will assuredly get cross-examined, which could be very traumatic for them. Even an hypothesis must contain evidence that it could be true.

 

[Secret Chief]

Evidence?

4% of women are ugly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

4% of women are ugly.

That was not the question in regards to the above context.

 

[metis]

4% of women are ugly.

They make better wives.

[Please do not let my wife know I just posted this or my life could be in jeopardy]

 

[ChristineM]

4% of women are ugly.

As are 20% of men. And some true Neanderthals among them.