8 ms·
Grisly find suggests humans inhabited Arctic 45,000 years ago
- kazinator 11y ago> “Surviving at those latitudes requires highly specialized technology and extreme cooperation,” Marean agrees. That implies that these were modern humans, rather than Neandertals [sic; UK spelling] or other early members of the human family. “ Hasn't the idea been debunked that neanderthals were ape-like idiots incapable of cooperation or sophisticated tools?
- Scriptor 11y agoThey weren't ape-like idiots, but nonetheless newly arrived Homo Sapiens used noticeably more sophisticated tool-making techniques. This is one of the ways archaeologists are able to distinguish Neanderthal sites from, say, Cro-magnon sites. It is also thought that modern Homo Sapiens lived in groups much larger than Neanderthals did.
- kazinator 11y agoBut the homo sapiens of 2016 uses more sophisticated tool-making techniques than the homo sapiens of 10,000 years ago! Flint arrowheads versus microchip fabs; same species.
- tosseraccount 11y agoSame genes though? Perhaps there has been selection for sophisticated tool making abilities.
- seizethecheese 11y ago10,000 years is extremely short from an evolutionary perspective.
- ableal 11y ago"Standing on the shoulders of giants."
- crpatino 11y agoNonetheless, Neanderthal were smart/skillful enough to survive in Europe during the Ice Ages. That's not the mild climate of today, but a harsh place that will kill you in hours unless you go in with some serious know-how and preparations. Neanderthals were baddass, they probably made better tools out of stone than homo sapiens sapiens typically did. But their minds were kind of... too narrowly focused. AFAIK, you could draw a plausible parallel between them and the dwarves of Tolkien fantasy.
- Scriptor 11y agoTrue, although the harshness of Ice Age Europe varied over time. It wasn't some hellish landscape but a thriving ecosystem with all sorts of wildlife and other food sources. The difference is that Neanderthals had hundreds of thousands of years to adapt to the environment of Ice Age Europe. They had even evolved actual physical adaptations to help them with the cold. But the humans who moved into the Arctic only had a few thousand years at most to adapt, if that. Neanderthals certainly weren't dumb and primitive, but as you said they were narrowly focused. Modern humans were able to rapidly adapt their lifestyles and technology to allow them to thrive in extreme environments such as the Arctic.
- jayess 11y agoIt amazes me that ancient people put up with such harsh conditions. Why not just move south, where it's warmer. I suppose part of the issue is lack of knowledge of other places, but still. Why stay in such a harsh, difficult place?
- pc86 11y agoIf it's all you know you don't necessarily have any reason to believe it's any better elsewhere. And moving is probably more dangerous than staying put assuming you have relative shelter and food.
- DamnYuppie 11y agoI don't totally disagree with your sentiment yet I am sure these people traveled extensively across their ranges. If by staying put you meant "confined their travels to the known habitats of their prey" then I will agree with you. I do agree that after generations of following their prey knowledge of warmer or different climates would fade from their collective conscious.
- pc86 11y agoThat is definitely a better way to put what I meant, yes.
- euyyn 11y agoStill at some point they did move up there. We come from Africa, where it's cozy.
- bluedino 11y agoLess competition and more resources if you adapt.
- ehmorris 11y agoIt's almost better to ask this question of people living now
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoThe real tragedy is, how little of the animal appears to have been used. The tongue; some of a tusk. That's it. No wonder they went extinct so quickly.
- golergka 11y ago> That's it. What? Do you have a source for that?
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoIn the article? The bones showed spear damage, jaw damage consistent with removing the tongue, and part of one tusk removed. No other 'butcher marks' were mentioned.
- golergka 11y agoSo? The fact that they're not mentioned in the article in no way indicates that the meat wasn't eaten. If anything, it's to be assumed by default.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoReally? They mentioned the tongue why then?
- litzer 11y ago"Elephant hunters in Africa, for example, often target the base of the trunk to cut arteries, causing the animal to bleed to death. The mammoth also had injuries to its jaw that suggest the tongue was cut out." As a way to bleed it out.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoI think that's the wrong interpretation by quite a ways. No hunter cut a tongue out to injure an animal so it would die (the purpose of the trunk thrusts). Nobody gets close enough to cut a tongue out without the animal being dead already.