Thursday, July 23, 2009

Homo Sapiens Owned Neanderthals In The Face

"These were the strongest generation of earth-born mortals,
the strongest, and they fought against the strongest, the beast men
living within the mountains, and terribly they destroyed them.
I was in the company of these men....'"
-- Homeros, poet, Iliad, Book I: 247-269, 8th century B.C.

Science Daily: Human Spear Likely Cause Of Death Of Neandertal.

ScienceDaily (July 22, 2009) — The wound that ultimately killed a Neandertal man between 50,000 and 75,000 years [ago] was most likely caused by a thrown spear, the kind modern humans used but Neandertals did not, according to Duke University-led research.

"What we've got is a rib injury, with any number of scenarios that could explain it," said Steven Churchill, an associate professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke. "We're not suggesting there was a blitzkrieg, with modern humans marching across the land and executing the Neandertals. I want to say that loud and clear."

But Churchill's analysis indicates the wound was from a thrown spear, and it appears that modern humans had a thrown-weapons technology and Neandertals didn't. "We think the best explanation for this injury is a projectile weapon, and given who had those and who didn't that implies at least one act of inter-species aggression."

Churchill is the first author of a new report now posted online in the Journal of Human Evolution on the long-ago incident in what is now Iraq. He and four other investigators used a specially calibrated crossbow, copies of ancient stone points and numerous animal carcasses to make their deductions.

Neandertals, stoutly-built and human-like, lived at the same time and in the same areas as some modern humans before going extinct. Anthropologists have been puzzling over Neandertal's fate for many years, proposing that perhaps they inter-bred with modern humans, failed to compete for food or resources, or were possibly hunted to extinction by the humans.

While narrowing the range of possible causes for the Iraqi Neandertal's wound, and raising the possibility of an encounter between humans and a now-extinct close cousin, the research does not definitively conclude who did it, or why.

The victim was one of nine Neandertals discovered between 1953 and 1960 in a cave in northeastern Iraq's Zagros Mountains. Now called "Shanidar 3," he was a 40- to 50-year-old male with signs of arthritis and a sharp, deep slice in his left ninth rib.

The wounded Neandertal's rib had apparently started healing before he died. Comparing the wound to medical records from the American Civil War, a time before modern antibiotics, suggested to the researchers that he died within weeks of the injury, perhaps due to associated lung damage from a stabbing or piercing wound.

"People have been speculating about that rib injury for going on 50 years now," Churchill said. "Some said it was interpersonal violence. Others said it could have been an accident. Did it involve only Neandertals? Now we, for the first time, have brought some experimental evidence to bear on these questions."

While scientists have been unable to precisely date the remains, Shanidar 3 could have lived and died as recently as 50,000 years ago. If so, he could have encountered modern humans who were just returning to the area then after a 30,000-year hiatus.

Archaeological evidence also suggests that by 50,000 years ago humans, but not their Neandertal cousins, had developed projectile hunting weapons, Churchill said. They used spear throwers, detachable handles that connected with darts and spears to effectively lengthen a hurler's arm and give the missiles a power boost.


Raptor Lewis said...

Why the interest in our species' history and evolution?

OilIsMastery said...

In the Metaphysics, Aristotle said "all men by nature desire to know."

Jeffery Keown said...

In the Metaphysics, Aristotle said "all men by nature desire to know."

I would agree. Human evolution is one subject near and dear to me.

OilIsMastery said...

Why is a falsified hypothesis near and dear to you? You should divorce your ego from your opinions imo. Anyway, according to your hypothesis of evolution not all men by nature desire to know but only Homo sapiens. According to your hypothesis of evolution: all men except for Homo spaiens are by nature retarded cave apes.

Jeffery Keown said...

falsified hypothesis

Show your work. When and where was it falsified? And for bonus points, by whom?

retarded cave apes

Domesication of fire, the invention of stone knapping, burial of their dead, division of labor? Not terribly retarded. Those are your words, chosen to annoy me. As for what homo ergaster desired to know... that's not a question that can be answered.

Like whether I think meteors are mythological. You can't answer that even though it's an open book test.

Keep dodging, you insufferable crackpot...I'll hit the semantic target eventually.

Jeffery Keown said...

I'd like your take on this.

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

Raptor Lewis said...

Guys, Guys...What's with the fighting? I mean, I've heard of intense debates, but this is rediculous! What's the problem? Why all the insults? I want to help, so what IS the problem? :(

Raptor Lewis said...


The only problem with your answers is that there's anger behind them. You're NEVER going to look or sound credible as long as there are insults and profanity in your work. If you provide good sources and do in-depth and profound research, then, perhaps, they'll listen to you. Besides, I happen to agree with some of your beliefs.

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

Evolution is a popular belief. As there are some fundamentalists opposed to that belief, some believers tend to become emotional and rapidly engage in profanity. Scientists do not get so emotional. Science is not as easy as it is presented in text books even at Post grad level, and the media also simplify these issues.
Scientists examine. They look at what others see and find what they do not. This frightens and threatens those who cannot see what is really there and have a merely one or two dimensional view of what is being discussed. Even to discuss these issues is "blasphemy" and many have been sentenced to death for scientific effort. Even for teaching that the earth obits the sun....!
Gradualists rule out catastrophe. Evolutionists tend to be gradualists. Hence OIM is testing what Jeffrey and others "know" about Homo Sapiens sapiens and how we became what we are.The record is so full of gaps that it is not a record at all. The remains are described to fit whatever theory is popular and will fund the work best. The private views of such scientific people may not be in line with the published ones! The real world is beset with problems. Having emotional believers espousing scientific views is almost guaranteed to be perilous for them as they will be exposed to other views which may be more likely to shock them.
Profanity often ensues thos Jeffrey appears to be quite a gentleman and may be a genuine seeker of knowledge if a tad shallow in his use of terminology.
Science is not easy, even if by rote, you get 105% on some tests! That is memory not true understanding. Academia almost renders one unfit to be a scientist altogether. Remember the greatest did not attend courses in what they created. These courses did not exist, by definition!

OilIsMastery said...

Great comments...=)

OilIsMastery said...


"I'd like your take on this."

I take panspermia very seriously and you should too.

Raptor Lewis said...

FungusFitzJuggler III,

I also want to say thanks for clearing that up. However, that's not to say I agree with those methods with someone, oh say, like Jefferey Keown! He IS a smart guy, but he has anger problems. I can understand OilIsMastery wanting to test somebody like him, but he's got to pay more attention to who he's testing. At this point, we need to help Jefferey gain control of his temper. If that continues to fail, then OilIsMastery should kick him off this blog because it's rediculous. It should teach him a lesson on controlling his temper when someone disagrees with him. I, personally, pity him.

Raptor Lewis said...


How is "By Nature, All Men Desire to Know," a falsified hypothesis?

Besides, that comment sounded beliggerent(sp?)! Human evolution is near and dear to me too just like the evolution of other animals. I am an Amateur Vertebrate Paleontologist who's knowledge lies in the theropod dinosaur group the Coelurosaurs! Talk to me about Evolution and I could run circles around you! :P

Jeffery Keown said...

Did you read the paper in its entirety?

"Only Life can create life"

Please. I'll grant that life here may have begun out there, but what he proposes is a tautology. Where did the life he presupposes come from?

Chromosonal fusion proves humans evolved from apes. Folks should just get used to it.

You still failed to produce evidence falsifiying evolution. You never actually answer questions. That's why I get upset. Why should I come here, every day and beat my head against the wall of nonsense Oils erects around all of his posts, I'll never know.

OilIsMastery said...


In response to: How is "By Nature, All Men Desire to Know," a falsified hypothesis?

If you believe in evolution then it's falsified because according to the hypothesis of evolution, only Homo sapiens sapiens desire to know. So according to evolution, any man who lived before 195,000 B.C. didn't desire wisdom.

OilIsMastery said...


"You still failed to produce evidence falsifiying evolution."

I have created a new section on the sidebar at left labeled "extreme human antiquity." You will find the evidence you customarily ignore located there.

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

I am no more than an amateur anatomist, but the pelvic areas of the two skeletons appear to belong to each of the two genders? Is the larger that of a woman, judging by the space in the pelvis, useful for a baby?

If we are angry we have an issue to address. Allowing Jeffery to vent is not really harmful to the blog but it is up to OIM. He has been victimised on other blogs for holding to his views. Freedom brings responsibilities. We should all be able to listen to another with a different point of view. This is academic debate and it was ever thus. At least there will be no duel! The strngth of emotion is a strong indicator that the commentor is not being detached, scientific, but is defending a belief? That is OK, too. But they should not pretend that the belief is sincerely scientifically based. That is how others with shallow reason come to join them on the wrong side of the debate. It is m isleading. Some deliberately mislead. If I was the controller of oil distribution I would view serious alternatives to that fuel, and means by which that fuel could be used more economically, as something to be quashed. I would buy up patents, spread rumours about technology fund websites to seriously confuse folks who spend so much to make me so rich! I might even employ a mfew scientists, since they sre so cheap.....
What if Schliemann had not disbelieved those who said Troy was a myth? Why did they say this? Science is full of liars and our only allies are reason and observation. We trst our reason and have it corrected by others and we are grateful for their correction. What a dreadful life this would be if we had learned all there is to know? Yet there are forces that wish to suppress knowledge.
Raptor, can you think of any such forces that you have experienced?


Jeffery Keown said...

What you refer to as evidence in the sidebar is just Cremo's musing about the Vedas. The Vedas, like all religious texts, are made up stories to explain the universe. I asked for evidence. Evidence like Chromosonal fusion, HERVs, protein similarity, DNA comparison and the fossil record.

Not some windbag with an agenda. This nonsense about victimization is laughable. There is, I think, one sure way of getting coverage on this blog. Simply suggest that your theory was rejected, not because it was flawed, but because you're being picked on by evil scientists.

I'm sorry if folks think I'm rude and abrasive, but I call things the way I see them. This blog is just a collection of hypotheses created by crackpots, denialists and scam artists, puncuated by moments, however fleeting, of insight and briliance.

Too few, methinks.