We are the champions ...

[ChristineM]

They make better wives.

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

Ha ha, got ya, my bank account number is on its way, i will consider monthly payments

 

[Secret Chief]

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

My whole town is a protected conservation reserve. (Excluding me of course )

 

[The Hammer]

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?

There is no archaeological evidence of Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis having been in any sort of skirmishes. No remains have been identified as having battle wounds or the types of damage one would expect from combat.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

Seemed about as relevant as the article was probably accurate.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

I too like could.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There is no archaeological evidence of Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis having been in any sort of skirmishes. No remains have been identified as having battle wounds or the types of damage one would expect from combat.

Yes, you might notice this in some of the comments - and to which I tend to agree - but not having much more than a general interest in the subject, I'll leave it to the experts. The article seems to suggest wounds suffered in combat have been found though.

 

[The Hammer]

Yes, you might notice this in some of the comments - and to which I tend to agree - but not having much more than a general interest in the subject, I'll leave it to the experts. The article seems to suggest wounds suffered in combat have been found though.

If it is talking about Forearm (defensive fractures) these are also known as "Rodeo Fractures" which are seen in Cowboys being thrown off of large animals (horses, cattle). It is also very likely that Neanderthals were using Ambush tactics on big game (Jumping on them), using their own physical size and prowess to overcome prey. This was something we discussed in a Physical Anthropology class, early this year.

 

[MNoBody]

You're saying we assimilated via ugly women?

can't judge man..... back in the day, by those standards they were probably thought the pick of the litter
R. Crumb has some comix where he explored that theme, which are apropos...and funny.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If it is talking about Forearm (defensive fractures) these are also known as "Rodeo Fractures" which are seen in Cowboys being thrown off of large animals (horses, cattle). It is also very likely that Neanderthals were using Ambush tactics on big game (Jumping on them), using their own physical size and prowess to overcome prey. This was something we discussed in a Physical Anthropology class, early this year.

I can imagine. It must be quite difficult to pin down the exact reasons for such wounds, and their interactions with other animals leaves a lot of leeway.

 

[metis]

If it is talking about Forearm (defensive fractures) these are also known as "Rodeo Fractures" which are seen in Cowboys being thrown off of large animals (horses, cattle). It is also very likely that Neanderthals were using Ambush tactics on big game (Jumping on them), using their own physical size and prowess to overcome prey. This was something we discussed in a Physical Anthropology class, early this year.

Weapons were used long before Neanderthal, such as an animal leg bone being used as a bludgeon that was used by a Homo erectus dating back to almost 1.5 million years ago.

 

[The Hammer]

Weapons were used long before Neanderthal, such as an animal leg bone being used as a bludgeon that was used by a Homo erectus dating back to almost 1.5 million years ago.

That's correct.

 

[Deeje]

Was it really like this?

Let’s see how sure the author is about this conjecture.....

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.

When you sell something by suggestion instead of basing it on solid evidence, you can invent all manner of scenarios to a willing audience. The “might have’s” become “must have’s”......

You see, there is no solid evidence for any of it. Imaginations can run riot.....and they have.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let’s see how sure the author is about this conjecture.....

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.

When you sell something by suggestion instead of basing it on solid evidence, you can invent all manner of scenarios to a willing audience. The “might have’s” become “must have’s”......

You see, there is no solid evidence for any of it. Imaginations can run riot.....and they have.

Wild theories are worth entertaining, even if the evidence
isn't yet convincing. No one has to believe it.

 

[Secret Chief]

You see, there is no solid evidence for any of it. Imaginations can run riot.....and they have.

And are you always critical in your reading?

 

[ChristineM]

Wild theories are worth entertaining, even if the evidence
isn't yet convincing. No one has to believe it.

I know some books that many do believe on no evidence

 

[Revoltingest]

I know some books that many do believe on no evidence

I'm sure they have some evidence.
But we might have differing standards on what constitutes
evidence. Moreover, evidence only matters when part of
a cogent argument.
This theory is at least disprovable.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm sure they have some evidence.
But we might have differing standards on what constitutes
evidence. Moreover, evidence only matters when part of
a cogent argument.
This theory is at least disprovable.

I wouldn't say 100% disprovable, just like today, i am (almost) sure there was the odd skirmish, haggis may even have been thrown.

But i think saying 'at war for 100000 years' is pushing the limits or credibility

 

[Deeje]

Wild theories are worth entertaining, even if the evidence
isn't yet convincing. No one has to believe it.

But how many do believe and with religious fervor? In today’s world you can believe whatever appeals to your own prejudices.

Evolution has eliminated God in the eyes of many, but it has no basis in fact....it’s all based on conjecture, supposition and suggestion.....and it appeals to those who want a reason to ditch a Creator. Freed from the constraint of accountability to a higher power, humans are free to behave like animals because they have been led to believe they are animals.

If you base your opinions on conjecture instead of established facts, you can be led down many rabbit holes. Can you bet you life on “might have’s”? What if they are dead wrong?

 

[Deeje]

And are you always critical in your reading?

Perhaps I see through the ruse because I know it’s source....

I read with a very critical eye....did you not see what I saw in the OP?

 

[ChristineM]

But how many do believe and with religious fervor? In today’s world you can believe whatever appeals to your own prejudices.

Evolution has eliminated God in the eyes of many, but it has no basis in fact....it’s all based on conjecture, supposition and suggestion.....and it appeals to those who want a reason to ditch a Creator. Freed from the constraint of accountability to a higher power, humans are free to behave like animals because they have been led to believe they are animals.

If you base your opinions on conjecture instead of established facts, you can be led down many rabbit holes. Can you bet you life on “might have’s”? What if they are dead wrong?

Every line of evidence into evolution had turned out to be 100% accurate. It happened, is still happening and is being observed in rapidly evolving animals like the Langkawi bent-toed gecko and Pygmy three-toed sloth