Comments on: Soviet Hominologists Were Right: Siberian Neandertals

By: PunkMaister

PunkMaister — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:05:16 +0000

The Neanderthals were not hairy apelike brutes other than being bit shorter and stout and with pronounced protruding eyebrows and really big nose they looked pretty much like us…

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:43:01 +0000

Its sometimes speculated that h.sapiens with their greater tool use (weapons) and larger numbers due to complex social orgnization as they encountered these smaller bands saw them as a threat and wiped them out. Those variants of h. erectus or neanderthal if they had fire would be the easiest to spot and eliminate by a coordinated effort to rid the primitive h.sapiens of the percieved threat/competition…and trolls.
So, perhaps those with a larger surface/volume ratio, the more gracile forms, which would have been naturally more dependent on fire, shelter and rudimentary tools would have been wiped out by making themselves conspicuous while the larger variants with their smaller surface to volume ration (and presumably a fur coat) who could survive as individuals or small families without the need for fire would linger and hold on, but not exhibit the traits that drew attention to their fellow relic hominid populations, and infact develope instincts for a highly deveolped instinct for cryptic behaviors and nocturnal sight.
I think it might be worth considering that while we humans use our sight to a large degree to identify our fellow species members and potential mates, most other animals rely on non-visual cues and if the pheremones are effective, and there are not behavioral barries, might be at the mercy of their instinctive urge to mate no matter if the prospective partner looks different.

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:07:19 +0000

Things-In-The-Woods brings up a good point about erectus tool use, which is one reason I tend to think the Yowie might be an erectus descendant because some use of sticks have been reported (The other being that they were known island hoppers, and possibly even built rafts, making Australia a reachable destination).

Most of the really big, hulking types seem much more ape than man (It’s a fine line, I know), suggesting something more akin to Gigantopithecus or Paranthropus (Not as certain as I once was about G. blacki being the best candidate, Loren makes some good points with his Paranthropus theory).

By: things-in-the-woods

things-in-the-woods — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:50:29 +0000

I’m with squatchwatcher and Mnynames- Neanderthals aren’t a very good fit for most claimed hominids- they were far too culturally and technologically advanced (although the stuff about language possession is entirely speculative and evidence for musical instruments or rituals is tenuous at best- but they had hafted tools, control of fire, and sophisticated wood-working skills at least), and too morphilogically similar to Homo sapiens sapiens. If there were surviving neaderthals, most likely they would be mistaken for one of us, rather than some kind of hulking ape monster (for one thing, Neanderthals are typically short- well under six feet tall- even if kind of beefy).

I too suspect that H. erectus or a similar hominid is the origin of BF et al (that or a Giganto relative), but even this requires quite a remarkable cultural regression (erectus made incredibly sophisticated stone tools, for instance, whereas tool use reported among BF and related beasties is rare and doesn’t get much beyond the very occasional digging stick, which is more similar to- if not simpler than- that of existing non-human apes).

Zytebac-
I have heard nothing about hybridization between neanderthals and erectus (although it doesn’t seem impossible- especially early in the emergence of the neaderthal species). There are very occasional claims of neanderthal/homo sapiens sapiens interbreeding (e.g., the Larga Velho child), but these are not widely accepted in the palaeoanthropological community, and even if true seem to be extremely rare and isolated (i.e., not sufficient or sustained enough gene-flow to allow the emergence of a new species).

With regards to the discovery highlighted in the Nature paper, I am not particularly surprised, either by its location or its relatively late date. There are no major barriers to their colonisation of this region (other perhaps than climate- but if Neanderthals could populate the severe tundra of northern germany then outposts in southern siberia dont seem impossible). I think we can expect further finds in this region as more excavation is carried out (it is worth remembering that distribution maps of past species are hugely biased by the amount of excavation carried out in specific regions- there have probably been as many excavations in southern france as in the whole of siberia, or large parts of central africa).

The late date is matched by similar dates for the last surviving Neanderthal population refuges in Iberia, the Caucases and Crimea, and perhaps the Balkans.

By: Ole Bub

Ole Bub — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:43:15 +0000

Excellent article…Loren.

Thanks for sharing…

Hmmmm…makes me wonder about the Native American concept of “Ancient Peoples” and “Shadow People”…JMHO

Looking forward to meeting so many fine folks at the Jefferson conference next month. Anyone have lodging recommendations for the TBRC Jefferson event?

live and let live…

ole bub and the dawgs

By: zytebac

zytebac — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:36:31 +0000

Am I wrong, or did I read somewhere that Neantertal and H. Erectus were able to cross breed and produced a varient, whose skull was found somewhere in W. Europe?
I only bring this up on the prelude that if Neantertal is still around, wouldn’t it have intermixed so much that in this day and age it would appear to look more Erectus, and less Mechany-like?
My thought is that the Siberian, or Mechany Creature is something of a more ape-like class than of a sub-human species. Something so genetically different that it has remained basically unchanged, except for environmental factors. Or perhaps interbreeding with our own sasquatch gene pool.

By: Allen Hazen

Allen Hazen — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:59:43 +0000

Loren–
Mystery solved: I clicked the link in your article. The ABSTRACT of Krause et al.’s paper was put on-line by “Nature” on 30 Sept: the complete paper will, I suppose, appear in due course.
I don’t recognize the other names (no surprise: I’m not in their field professionally), but the last author named, Svante Paabo, has for some years been one of the leading researchers into Neandert(h)al (not to mention Mammoth) DNA. His lab is probably the best in the business when it comes to the practicalities of looking for “fossil” DNA (avoiding contamination etc etc etc).

By: Terry W. Colvin

Terry W. Colvin — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:45:35 +0000

I’m a splitter on this issue. I think Neandertals are
separate from wildmen and big hairy creatures. The
Neandertal DNA may live on through interbreeding but the phenotype is no longer expressed.

Did Mark A. Hall’s book on relict populations discuss the pros and cons of Neandertals surviving into at least recorded history if not today?

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 04:34:55 +0000

This is a comment section; not a conversation forum. Off-topic remarks are regularly deleted. Thank you for your cooperation.

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:59:57 +0000

Neanderthals have never been a good fit for most of the Eurasian hairy bipeds, with the exception of a few reports of “tribes” of skin-wearing peoples with an unknown language, who occasionally trade with humans. My money is still on H. erectus or a close relative for most of the other reports, short of your Yeti types, which are even more primitive (And in at least one case, likely a cryptid bear).