Slashdot Mirror


Neanderthals Were Likely Able To Hunt Over Significant Distances With Spears, Study Finds (nature.com)

dryriver writes: In the past, Neanderthal humans were believed to be largely close-distance hunters. A new paper in the journal Nature, based on actual outdoor tests with multiple test subjects throwing two wooden spears closely mimicking ancient spears found in various places at a target, surmises that spear throwing Neanderthals may in fact have been able to kill animals at distances of 60 feet or even greater. The authors found that targeting a wooden spear accurately at that distance takes skill, and even worked out the impact velocity of Neanderthal spears at such a distance. Nevertheless, Neanderthals with sufficient practice in spear throwing may very well have been capable of killing at distances far greater than previously thought. This changes the assumption that Neanderthals needed to get very close to animals in order to have a chance of killing them.

150 comments

  1. Why is this a surprise? by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that we interbred with them means they were the same species as us whatever others may say, just a different race who happened to be somewhat stronger and just as intelligent.

    1. Re:Why is this a surprise? by quenda · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The fact that we interbred with them means they were the same species as us

      That might be the sort of thing they taught you in high school decades ago when we were kids, but the definition of species has had to be revised considerably since then. It is a murky concept. See Ring Species for an example of how complex it can get.

      Mostly, homo sapiens and neanderthals did not interbreed, just sometimes.

    2. Re:Why is this a surprise? by ilguido · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is a murky concept.

      So his definition is as good as yours. Species are a matter of perception (like planets, dwarf planets, satellites, quasi-satellites).

    3. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but neanderthals are *not* likely to accept good article submissions. BeauHD is what you get when you mate a neanderthal with a homo habilis.

    4. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      and just as intelligent.

      How did you measure this?

    5. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similarly, this reminds me of our resident neanderthal IT clerk living in San Jose who posts click bate videos all the time. He is able to hunt his clicks over significant distances just as well.

    6. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The fact that we interbred with them means they were the same species as us

      That might be the sort of thing they taught you in high school decades ago when we were kids, but the definition of species has had to be revised considerably since then. It is a murky concept. See Ring Species for an example of how complex it can get.

      Mostly, homo sapiens and neanderthals did not interbreed, just sometimes.

      Last time I checked there was no consistent universally accepted definition of what constitutes a 'species'. Many Geneticists for example are even of the opinion that there is no genetic evidence for concept of 'races' in humans, which is another categorisation that has never been clearly defined. From the point of view of genetics, 'race' is little more than an artificial construct that humans have created to make each others lives more complicated and generally more miserable than they have to be.

    7. Re:Why is this a surprise? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We are all the same, humans, gorillas, and neanderthals. Intelligence, body hair, cranial shape; these are all just social constructs.

    8. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now have access to guns.

    9. Re: Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until they ran into the Homo sapiens archers

    10. Re: Why is this a surprise? by Seewhatidonehere · · Score: 1

      ",Mostly, homo sapiens and neanderthals did not interbreed, just sometimes " One is more than zero. Also we happen to be descendants of those that did go into the bush with the Neanderthals. Science tends to give little credit to the prehistoric human, but even I learnt in primary school that stone spearheads were common in use so this is old story

    11. Re: Why is this a surprise? by hey! · · Score: 1, Troll

      Get with the program. White supremacists are claiming that Neanderthal ancestry is what makes the white "race" superior these days.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that we interbred with them means they were the same species as us whatever others may say, just a different race who happened to be somewhat stronger and just as intelligent.

      we should never have polluted the neanderthal gene pool

      if we were placed here alongside neanderthals by an alien species, then that alien species is ultimately responsible for the near destruction of earth due to climate change

      we are likely an alien DNA experiement that went wrong (ie. we are similar to roaches and it is in our nature to destroy ourselves) while neanderthals were developed by mother nature herself

    13. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Sique · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Actually, he didn't give a definition for a species. He only insisted that "interbreeding with fertile offspring" is not a good criterion It would for instance not cover geographical species, which would be able to interbreed, but can't because the two populations don't mix due to geographical conditions.

      And it would not cover quite common species like the ordinary dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), which has a surprisingly complex way to create offspring. There are three different genetic make-ups of dandelion: diploid, triploid and tetraploid, which can't easily crossbreed. From the outside, they all look identical, just the number of chromosomes they have in their nuclei changes. Two diploid parents create tetraploid offspring. A diploid and a tetraploid dandelion create triploid offspring. Triploid dandelions are infertile, but can create clones of themselves. Tetraploid dandelion can't fertilize another tetraploid dandelion, only diploids. So the normal way is that diploids create tetraploids, and then the diploids and the tetraploids create triploids, which are infertile, but create clones. And how does the circle close? The cloning is not perfect, and often, after cloning, one chromosome is missing, so with time, the triploid chromosome set becomes more and more diploid. With a chromosome set mainly but not necessarily completely diploid, dandelion starts to behave like a perfect diploid, crossfertilizing other diploid and tetraploid dandelion again.

      If you look at the "fertile offspring" definition of species, common dandelion wouldn't be a single species, but rather each individual plant would be a species of its own, as it is either infertile (triploids), can't create any offspring with individuals of the same genetic make-up (tetraploids), can't create fertile offspring (diploid x tetraploid) or can't create offspring of similar genetic make-up (diploid x diploid).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    14. Re:Why is this a surprise? by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      goats and sheep can breed, the same with horses and donkeys, lions and tigers, coyotes and wolves, i am sure the list can be longer if i wanted to research it more extensively

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    15. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Sandman4761 · · Score: 1

      Are there not a number of animals that can interbreed but are clearly not the same species? A number come to mind that produce sterile offspring like Tiger/Lion or Horse/Donkey ... perhaps there are additional examples where the children are fertile?

    16. Re: Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody wants the goatC shirt...he is projecting his fantasies.

    17. Re:Why is this a surprise? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      If you take the view that it's based on interbreeding ability, there is no such thing as a geographical species, just varieties. Ring species are sufficiently rare as to be an exception. But obviously, no simple definition can exist. It's amazing to me that people can have such attachment to the concept of race when even species isn't well-defined no matter which definition you use, but there you go.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re: Why is this a surprise? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep. They called black people unevolved primitives until it came out that only black people hadn't fucked Neanderthals. Then they had to do a quick 180, proving that the only thing they believe in is their own superiority, which is trivially disproven. What a bunch of cowards. If they had two balls between 'em they'd be able to go out in public without a ghost costume.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right! Anyone who disagrees is speciesist!

    20. Re:Why is this a surprise? by willy_me · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sure, like wolves and coyotes. The problem the hybrids face is that there is typically no space in the environment for them. Both wolves and coyotes have evolved to be optimally suited for their environment and there is no space in between -- the hybrids are killed off. The only exception to this rule is when humans get involved. Where humans killed off the wolves in eastern Canada, hybrids are now well established.

    21. Re: Why is this a surprise? by Seewhatidonehere · · Score: 1

      Love it when a 13 year old editor says " in the past".

    22. Re: Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      White supremacists are really in a catch twenty two. Other kinds of supremacists can survive and thrive and be symbiotic. Only white supremacists can destroy humanity if left unchecked

    23. Re: Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err... Neanderthals had much larger brains than us. They were likely more intelligent.

    24. Re: Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never checked human DNA? A large portion is neanderthal. Up to half, in many groups. Denesonian is the next largest grouping, aand modern man the third. Are we regressing?

    25. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but neanderthals are *not* likely to accept good article submissions. BeauHD is what you get when you mate a neanderthal with a homo habilis.

      And just what did neanderthals and homo habilis do to you to deserve that?

      PS - you omitted "Russian! Russian! Russian!" neanderthals. This is BeauHD we're talking about...

    26. Re: Why is this a surprise? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Only white supremacists can destroy humanity if left unchecked"

      Bullshit. Any color of people can destroy the biosphere just by continuing to make shit we don't need. Speaking of which, noticed how desperate Apple is getting lately? They have pounded YouTube full of commercials for their garbage. All this crap nobody wants is destroying our home, I can't even enjoy Apple's failing because I know it's built on destruction.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re: Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iSupremacists are worst supremacists.

    28. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Sique · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then we have the case of lion and tiger. Here, it gets really complicated. A crossbred of a male tiger and a lioness is usually called a liger. While male ligers are infertile, female ligers are fertile. If you cross a female liger with a male lion, you get something called a li-liger (Panthera leo x (leo x tigris)). And li-liger are fertile, both males and females, and can interbreed. Are tiger and lion the same species, as you can create hybrids that are fertile?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    29. Re: Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impossible to say as the size of the brain is at best a poor indicator of intelligence. Humans don't have the largest brain by any measure. Corvids have incredibly small brains in general yet show a remarkably high level of intelligence, having shown the ability of inter-generational memory and basic speech capability as well as being surprising good with tools.

      I mean, simple bigger brain == smarter would mean that men on average would be smarter than women, and intelligence would scale with height in humans. And I don't know too many people who would argue the average NBA player is the epitome of intelligence.

    30. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Sique · · Score: 1
      Actually, they stop at the F1 generation, as either all crossbred offspring is infertile, or at least follows Haldane's rule, meaning that with mammals, the male offspring is infertile.

      So while you can get crossbreds, you can't further bred the crossbreds to have generations of hybrids.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    31. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So when the slave master interbred with the slaves, did that mean they created a different race that was somewhat stronger and just as intelligent?

      Just saying. Take your human privilege and stick it up your ass you homosapien.

      As a Neanderthal, you have no idea of the discrimination i go through every day by privileged humanoids who mock and deride my hairy back, poor table manner, and lack of effective communication skills. I demand reparations from the human race for what you did to my people 30000 years ago

    32. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      comment of the year :)

    33. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It is a murky concept. ...

      Mostly, homo sapiens and neanderthals did not interbreed, just sometimes.

      Did you just assume my species?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    34. Re: Why is this a surprise? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, noticed how desperate Apple is getting lately? They have pounded YouTube full of commercials for their garbage. All this crap nobody wants is destroying our home, I can't even enjoy Apple's failing because I know it's built on destruction.

      Well, at least we know now that everything is Apple's fault.

      Fucking hipsters anyhow!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    35. Re: Why is this a surprise? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, at least we know now that everything is Apple's fault.

      Nah, they're just one of many culprits, but they exemplify everything that is wrong with the world today. Faster shittier cheaper BUY IT YOU MORONS etc etc. It makes the world burn.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Why is this a surprise? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And li-liger are fertile, both males and females, and can interbreed. Are tiger and lion the same species, as you can create hybrids that are fertile?

      Great question. Here's another one: Is the concept of "species" really going to be useful going forwards, or are we going to have to track DNA? That does tend to get cheaper over time...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:Why is this a surprise? by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that it's most correct to say that they are we, not that we inbred with them. Or more technically, Neanderthals are some of our ancestors.

      --
      -Dave
    38. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the point of view of genetics, 'race' is little more than an artificial construct that humans have created to make each others lives more complicated and generally more miserable than they have to be.

      While I will stipulate that you are correct, I will point out that there are some uses for race in the medical area. For example some races are more prone to certain genetic illnesses or even more susceptible to actual disease. So when a Dr. is attempting to determine what is wrong with someone race can sometimes be a useful indicator. But yeah, for social interaction race is just to say "I am better than X".

    39. Re:Why is this a surprise? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Species are just a useful but largely arbitrary label for groups of animals with similar characteristics. Evolution is a continuous process, and there are no clear lines where one species ends and another starts.

      Race is something invented long ago to give a pseudo-scientific explanation of why white people are superior. Europeans viewed everyone else as inferior and wanted a scientific explanation of why that was, so made up some races along largely arbitrary lines and started looking for reasons why they were less intelligent or more savage.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    40. Re: Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said. Also, I'd like to personally invite you to any thread involving Africa whatsoever. I always need a silkwood shower after reading those.

    41. Re:Why is this a surprise? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      The species doesn't matter. The point of the article is that we've discovered that the spears used during that period were more accurate than we previously believed. That is a function of physics, not genetics.

    42. Re:Why is this a surprise? by ilguido · · Score: 2

      Race is something invented long ago to give a pseudo-scientific explanation of why white people are superior.

      Bullshit. The title of the founding text of evolutionary biology is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". The concept of race was right there, since the beginning.

      Species are just a useful but largely arbitrary label for groups of animals with similar characteristics. Evolution is a continuous process, and there are no clear lines where one species ends and another starts.

      Stop there, please. Race is basically the same: an arbitrary label with no clear lines. Like subspecies, which is basically the same concept as race, by a different name. Or family. It is all arbitrary. And it has nothing to do with Europeans (were/are only Europeans that view others as inferior?), nor with chauvinism (race, as a word, originally was mostly used for animals and livestock).

    43. Re:Why is this a surprise? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Mostly, homo sapiens and neanderthals did not interbreed, just sometimes.
      You mix up "sometimes" with "someplace".

      Interbreeding as we know today happened in Europe.
      The genes for red hair is an Neanderthal gene ... go figure.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    44. Re:Why is this a surprise? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      From the point of view of genetics, 'race' is little more than an artificial construct that humans have created to make each others lives more complicated and generally more miserable than they have to be.
      Race of humans, yes.

      Races of horses, sheep, cows, dogs, cats ... etc. not so much.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    45. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      and just as intelligent

      This is not entirely clear. They were pretty darn intelligent, one of the world leaders. But to say they were as smart as anatomically-modern humans would require evidence that, AFAIK, nobody has found. That's merely a reasonable guess.

      And I'm not not even completely sure that older "anatomically-modern" humans were as smart as the current humans. The negative space of the hardware (i.e. the skull) looks about the same, but thoughts don't fossilize, so we're just making best guesses from whatever evidence they left behind. Personally, I'm suspicious about how art seems to only go back so far (about 40k years ago?), though it's probably just due to pigments not aging well. People back then sure as hell took their sweet time getting technology and an industrial base going. (Yes, I understand that it's hard to do that when you're pre-occupied with mere survival, and nobody has the leisure time to geek out.) Why no farming until about 12k ago? Why no cave are until about 40k-50k ago?

      I'm not saying people weren't as intelligent as us back then, but don't tell me they were unless you can back it up. Craniums aren't enough to do it for me, though I'll admit they're probably the best we have to work with.

      If it all comes down to people getting and spreading some software upgrade (i.e. culture as opposed to brains) and if that had an effect on what people were able to intellectually accomplish, I call that intelligence. And if Neanderthals didn't have it (I'll admit I'm piling a lot of "if"s on) then they weren't as intelligent.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    46. Re:Why is this a surprise? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The point of the article is that we've discovered that the spears used during that period were more accurate than we previously believed.
      Well a few days/weeks ago we had an article about "why are scientists surprised" or something.

      Sorry, the article, the "research" and the "discovery" is just bullshit.

      We find 300,000 year old relics of wooden spears made by Neanderthals ...
      Some couch potato pseudo scientist can not imagine (yes imagine) that such a spear was useful to hunt unless you are as close as 10 yards. He writes a paper. It gets "scientific consensus". It gets taught in schools.

      I made spears as a boy, throwing them about 40 yards ... no one taught me, I had no particular skill, the spears where not sophisticated.

      The idea that a prehistoric human race is smart enough to make spears, but to dumb to use them, is: idiotic.

      In many regards scientists are just idiots who lack common sense.

      Most likely they hat Atl Atl's to throw them or used strings wrapped around the end of the spear and threw them 100 yards or more. What fucking animal lets you get close enough that you can throw from 20 yards (oh, new science) or from 10 yards (old science)???

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    47. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's not like the Chinese, for example, distingushed between races. Or kept super detailed logs on what races looked and acted like so they could spot them. No sirree. History is just one long example of EVIL WHITE MEN doing EVIL WHITE THINGS while all the other non-white non-european people (who are all the same race anyway, rite?) held hands and skipped in fields of flowers singing songs of friendship.

      History: Just ignore all the inconvenient bits and don't be afraid to invent nonsense to support your insane ramblings.

    48. Re:Why is this a surprise? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Race is arbitrary, that's what I said.

      The concept of race existed before of course, but was not really something Europeans thought about much until the scientific revolution of the 1800s, which coincided with colonialism. The various empires were in full swing by then, as was slavery and the development of moral philosophy, and Europeans looked to justify their position as the literal master race.

      To that end they started measuring skulls and coming up with all kinds of dubious reasons, which at the time seemed plausible because a) they were the masters and had the best science/technology and b) they didn't understand biology very well.

      In other words there was a lot of confirmation bias and simplistic, flawed science produced by people who benefited greatly from the conclusions they found.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    49. Re: Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Makes you want to shove him upside down into a wastebasket, doesn't it.

    50. Re:Why is this a surprise? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you have gotten this information, but down at the genetics department we would ask you to go back to the humanities department.
      Did you know, for instance, that the cell lines GM18505, GM19099, and GM19238, are of the Yoruban origin, and therefor contain approximately 3-5 times as many rare SNPs as GM18951, which is Japanese in origin? That makes it pretty clear the two aren't the same race.
      Did you know that Yorubans have an immune system that is genetically well-adapted to fight off bacteria, while Caucasians have immune systems better suited for dealing with viral infections? That seems like a pretty important difference, and I promise you that the immune system is not a social construct.

      We have biological races, no matter if we like it or not.

    51. Re:Why is this a surprise? by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      You have the backwards. A male tiger crossed with a female lioness is a tigon. A liger is a male lion and a female tigress. The male usually goes first if you're making a portmanteau of the parents to call a crossbreed a new name. Zorse = male zebra + female horse, hebra = male horse + female zebra, etc.

      Notable exceptions are the mule/hinny (horse/donkey hybrids) and wog - which is any cross between wolf and dog.

      Worth noting that it is easier to crossbreed a hybrid when the male is the one with the lower chromosome count. Hence, it is easier to produce mules than hinnies, and easier to produce tigons than ligers. Wogs are an odd case because wolves and dogs are very much genetically compatible and so there is no issue either way mating wolves with dogs, the offspring and just stronger, bigger, less domesticated dogs (or more domesticated wolves).

      Further errata: mules and hinnies are ALWAYS sterile. But as you mentions other hybrids can sometimes still be fertile. Ti-tigons and Li-ligers are possible, but rare.

    52. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neanderthals had a brain that was on average a bit larger than that of modern humans. Intelligence is not directly a result of the brain size, but it is strongly linked. So there's no reason to expect that they were less intelligent than us - we may have replaced them simply because we bred faster and lived in larger groups. Everything else being equal, those two characteristics alone would wipe out Neanderthals in any area where they peacefully co-habited with modern humans. If the co-habitation was not peaceful, they would be wiped out even faster by the numerical disadvantage.

    53. Re:Why is this a surprise? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      People back then sure as hell took their sweet time getting technology and an industrial base going. (Yes, I understand that it's hard to do that when you're pre-occupied with mere survival, and nobody has the leisure time to geek out.) Why no farming until about 12k ago? Why no cave are until about 40k-50k ago?

      Population. It's relevant in a lot of ways. For example only so many people are creative enough to think of new technologies, and only a subset of those people are driven enough to develop them. Or labor, of course. You need a certain number of hands. And then there's specialization. Hunter-gatherers are generalists. Doing complicated things well requires specialists.

      If it all comes down to people getting and spreading some software upgrade (i.e. culture as opposed to brains) and if that had an effect on what people were able to intellectually accomplish, I call that intelligence.

      Probably both software and wetware. The more you use your brain, the more it can do. If you grow up using your brain more, you'll be able to use it more when you are older, too. And then there's a chance that those who grow up around you will accomplish even more. And these adaptations can actually be passed on to offspring epigenetically, so it's quite likely that modern people actually are smarter than our forebears — at least some of us. And the corollary is that if we go back to living in caves like savages and give up mathematics and so on, we really will get dumber. Or, you know, have generations grow up attached to the glass teat.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    54. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Races of horses, sheep, cows, dogs, cats ... etc. not so much.

      These are also artificial human constructs, with the difference that humans constructed them physically by breeding.

    55. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interbreeding between sapientes and neanderthalenses happened in Europe and the Middle East. Sapiens separately interbred with denisova. There might also have been interbreeding between all three. "Go figure" is not a scientific approach.

    56. Re:Why is this a surprise? by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      Nope. Mules can breed. It's just not tried frequently, and probably not all that successful. Interestingly, I once read about a project that used "hand" fertilization that produced a complete chromosome set horse from a mule and horse crossbreed. (I may be misremembering, it may have been a hinny.)

      https://articles.extension.org...

      Genes are weird.

    57. Re:Why is this a surprise? by ilguido · · Score: 1

      The concept of race existed before of course, but was not really something Europeans thought about much until the scientific revolution of the 1800s, which coincided with colonialism. The various empires were in full swing by then, as was slavery[...]

      Not really. In 1794 slavery was abolished in all the territories of the French Republic. The British Empire had abolished slave trade in 1807, and actively forced the end of the slave trade, alongside other colonial powers, through military intervention. In 1809 Charles Darwin was born. In 1815, the Congress of Vienna condemned the slave trade, Darwin was a little kid. Free "brown" people continued to practice slavery well into the 20th centuries (and practically even today, if you look at Saudi Arabia and its neighbours), and they stopped only under international (i.e. Europe, USA, USSR and some other whitish country) pressure.

      The so called scientific racism, which used evolutionary biology as a basis, is a phenomenon of the late 19th century (The Origin of the species etc. was first published in 1859), well after that slavery was abolished in Europe.

    58. Re:Why is this a surprise? by vizbones · · Score: 0

      "'race' is little more than an artificial construct..." Correct! Among modern humans it is a construct. But I do think the Neanderthals were a TRUE human race: - we interbred "in the wild" (so they weren't a completely different species) - they are statistically distinguishable on an individual basis from modern populations, based on a suite of skeletal measures They have all the hallmarks of a different human race.

    59. Re:Why is this a surprise? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      No, you don't. You have groups of genes that originated in certain populations, that certain cell lines are representative of.
      I'm really surprised you know that much about categorized cell lines without understanding what makes them, well them.
      Cell lines are categorized by the geolocation of the population they originated from. The word race does not show up there.

      I'm forced to conclude that you're a twat.

    60. Re:Why is this a surprise? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Why no farming until about 12k ago?

      If you were thrown onto an island as an toddler, with a semi-abundant food source that doesn't require preparation, decent weather and zero education, would you have learned to farm?

      The vast majority of what we call intelligence, is a couple hundred thousand years of passed on cultural knowledge.

    61. Re:Why is this a surprise? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Technology is a cumulative progression. It seems natural to me that it would have a very exponential curve. I've never been surprised that it took our ancestors 10s of thousands of years to learn how to become agrarians.

    62. Re: Why is this a surprise? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how many arguments are merely arguments over definitions.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    63. Re:Why is this a surprise? by quenda · · Score: 1

      Interbreeding as we know today happened in Europe.

      It happened where they coexisted. Duh!

    64. Re:Why is this a surprise? by quenda · · Score: 1

      It's amazing to me that people can have such attachment to the concept of race when even species isn't well-defined no matter which definition you use, but there you go.

      Attached how? It is a useful concept with predictive value, in medicine or public policy for example.
      But you get people who say things like "race does not exist" or "race is a social construct" just because a race has no clear boundaries. By that logic, species do not exist, and we are all just animals. (Unless kingdom of life is a social construct too and we are all just eukaryotes. )

    65. Re:Why is this a surprise? by quenda · · Score: 1

      Species are just a useful but largely arbitrary label for groups of animals with similar characteristics.

      You could just as easily say the same thing about race.

      I'm guessing you are American, where over generations it has become a bit more cultural and less genetic. The problem is when a population is mixed and you try to label everyone as black or white. Worse, Americans label people as black even if they have only fractional black ancestry.

          Clearly trying to allocate race to individuals is problematic - see the mess from affirmative action and targeted rights programs.
      But at the population level (group statistics) race retains powerful predictive value, even in the US. In science we know that predictive value is what makes a theory good. Newtons theory of gravity might be completely wrong in the detail of how it works, but the predictions are valid, so gravity is real, whether we understand it or not.

    66. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Sique · · Score: 1

      Apparently, the problem is often the X- and Y-chromosome. With female mammals, you have an XX combination, where you can hope that at least one of them is working in the new genetic make-up, thus you often have fertile female hybrids. With XY, you have less luck. But if you interbred an XX hybrid (e.g. a female hybrid) with one of the parent species, chances are 50:50, that you get both chromosomes from a single species, and then you can have fertile offspring.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    67. Re:Why is this a surprise? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You could just as easily say the same thing about race.

      That's what I am saying. And I'm not American.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    68. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      From their art and tools, how do you think you muppet?

    69. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Kartu · · Score: 1

      and just as intelligent.

      And with brains bigger than those of modern humans.
      Curious, huh?

    70. Re:Why is this a surprise? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      Ahh, now I get it. You want to avoid the word, because it has a sociopolitical meaning you don't like. Okay, you're right. We don't have "races". We have "geographical origination profiles" that happen to correspond statistically to certain phenotypes. But concurrently we're also all the same, and any differences are purely social constructs.

    71. Re:Why is this a surprise? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Of course I want to avoid use of the word. The word has little scientific meaning.
      As an example, Japanese, as a "race" refers to a small set of diagnostic characteristics that are really completely irrelevant to the genetic characteristics of those cell lines.
      An individual considered Caucasian can carry attributes of a cell line that originated in Japan, and a Japanese individual can lack them.
      What makes one Caucasian? A lack of melanin in their skin. That's all.
      The fact that you don't want to avoid the word tells me you're a shitty biologist.

    72. Re:Why is this a surprise? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      It has a solid scientific meaning, you just don't like the particular emotional values that you have attached to it. And that's pretty much what one would expect from an anti-intellectual.

      As for "Japanese" having a small set of irrelevant characteristics, that is profoundly wrong, and I do wonder how you came up with that. You see, it turns out that statistics are rather important in genetics, which seems like something you should know before making uneducated claims. I am also somewhat disappointed that you don't understand how science works while being so vocal about it.

      Finally, and this is really strange since you are contradicting your own claim here about an individual sometimes lacking a phenotype from his own reference genome, Caucasian is not equal to melanin concentrations in the skin; that is only one phenotype, an incredibly basic factoid for those that have even the smallest knowledge of genetics.
      These things tell me that you aren't qualified to assess whether or not I am a shitty biologist; but it does sound like you're qualified to ask me if I want fries with that.

    73. Re:Why is this a surprise? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      It has a solid scientific meaning

      Citation needed. Your opinion does not count.

      you just don't like the particular emotional values that you have attached to it.

      This is a common claim among morons who like to paint the vast majority of scientists that consider racist tirades masqueraded as science as some kind of conspiratorial cabal suppressing the truth. Your colors are showing.

      And that's pretty much what one would expect from an anti-intellectual.

      Yes, I must be that. In all likelihood, my intellectual work has impacted your life at some point. Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

      As for "Japanese" having a small set of irrelevant characteristics, that is profoundly wrong, and I do wonder how you came up with that.

      Again, citation needed. I'm also curious how you can wonder how I came up with it when it is the scientific consensus.
      I'll note that I said irrelevant to the said cell lines, which it is.

      You see, it turns out that statistics are rather important in genetics

      I find it fascinating that you point this out, and fail to see how it completely derails your argument.
      Race is asked in medical settings to judge the probability of a phenotype existing, to see if it is worth looking at pathologically speaking. It's hardly a rule.
      Phenotypes do not follow sociological or anthropological concepts of race as a rule, only as a gross generalization that has little place in statistical studies or assumptions. That was physical anthropology 101.

      Finally, and this is really strange since you are contradicting your own claim here about an individual sometimes lacking a phenotype from his own reference genome,

      No, you're begging the question. Being we disagree that your definition of race is the correct definition, the above statement is categorically false.

      Caucasian is not equal to melanin concentrations in the skin;

      You're right, of course. It means a person lacking significant melanin in their epidermis and of European descent, which again, means precisely dick in the context you are using it in, except that there is a probability of said person expressing a phenotype.

      that is only one phenotype, an incredibly basic factoid for those that have even the smallest knowledge of genetics.

      Yes, the diagnostic phenotype, expressing exactly why race is a non-scientific term.
      All you're doing is making my point for me, once you accept that your definition of race does not exist outside of your brain.

      These things tell me that you aren't qualified to assess whether or not I am a shitty biologist;

      No they don't, they tell you that you're struggling really badly to cling onto something resembling logic in order to paint a veil of rationality onto your likely racist beliefs, and you know that. You know you're struggling.

      but it does sound like you're qualified to ask me if I want fries with that.

      There's little qualification for that outside of being able to communicate and follow basic instructions and logic. So ya, I'd say I'm qualified for that.
      Being those are dependent qualifications for what you supposedly do, I'm beginning to think you're nothing but an armchair shit stain peddling archaic racist beliefs dressed up in a veneer of bad logic and scientific-sounding words.

    74. Re:Why is this a surprise? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      Citation needed. Your opinion does not count.

      Actually, since I'm a scientist, my opinion does count, funnily enough; I do after all get to publish findings on such topics.

      This is a common claim among morons who like to paint the vast majority of scientists that consider racist tirades masqueraded as science as some kind of conspiratorial cabal suppressing the truth. Your colors are showing.

      Ah, and here comes the brown smearing; quite expected. I would say the word 'emotional' was highly accurate.

      Yes, I must be that. In all likelihood, my intellectual work has impacted your life at some point. Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

      Yes, that's why I said it. You are deferring objective for emotional because it makes you feel better. That is indeed anti-intellectual.
      It is fully possible that your work has impacted my life at some point; sometimes I do want fries with that.

      Again, citation needed. I'm also curious how you can wonder how I came up with it when it is the scientific consensus.
      I'll note that I said irrelevant to the said cell lines, which it is.

      It is absolutely not the scientific consensus, at least not in the natural sciences. It might be in the humanities, I don't know. Is that where you learned about biology?
      And no, it isn't irrelevant to the cell lines, because again, statistics.

      I find it fascinating that you point this out, and fail to see how it completely derails your argument.
      Race is asked in medical settings to judge the probability of a phenotype existing, to see if it is worth looking at pathologically speaking. It's hardly a rule.
      Phenotypes do not follow sociological or anthropological concepts of race as a rule, only as a gross generalization that has little place in statistical studies or assumptions. That was physical anthropology 101.

      Race is a probabilistic measure, yes. Well done.
      Phenotypes do follow statistical distributions, and they have great relevance in statistical studies, such as GWAS. You would have known that if you actually understood basic genetics.

      No, you're begging the question. Being we disagree that your definition of race is the correct definition, the above statement is categorically false.

      It's not that we disagree; I have explained how it actually works and you have thrown a tantrum.

      You're right, of course. It means a person lacking significant melanin in their epidermis and of European descent, which again, means precisely dick in the context you are using it in, except that there is a probability of said person expressing a phenotype.

      This is why I worry; you don't understand even the most basic concept. Being "black" is only a single phenotype but in genetics you would look at many markers, not just one. That's why statistics are important.

      Yes, the diagnostic phenotype, expressing exactly why race is a non-scientific term.
      All you're doing is making my point for me, once you accept that your definition of race does not exist outside of your brain.

      Unfortunately, only you have claimed that it's the diagnostic phenotype. Perhaps the problem here is that you are inventing your own strawman?

      No they don't, they tell you that you're struggling really badly to cling onto something resembling logic in order to paint a veil of rationality onto your likely racist beliefs, and you know that. You know you're struggling.

      No, it's pretty clear that you don't understand genetics or that biologists can talk about such things as race without adding their sociopolitical values to the concepts. That is also why you're anti-intellectual.

      There's little qualification for that outside of being able to communicate and follow basic instructions and logic. So ya, I'd say I'm qualified for

    75. Re:Why is this a surprise? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Actually, since I'm a scientist, my opinion does count, funnily enough; I do after all get to publish findings on such topics.

      I wait with bated breath to read one of these papers.
      Being it will consist of your opinion dressed up as fact, it'll likely be laughed right out of the journal like most work done on such topics by your type. You seem to think that it's ok to construct evidence to fit your opinion. So no, your opinion does not count. What you can back up counts.

      Your view is a minority view. "Race" has no place in biology, except as a very imprecise proxy for certain phenotypes. And you've shown that with your own words, only you're too dim to understand what it means for your argument.
      You paint criticism of your logic failures as tantrums, also a sign that you're just not very clever.

      Unfortunately, only you have claimed that it's the diagnostic phenotype.

      It's not me, it's the scientific community at large. You can say it's just me, but it doesn't make it true.

      You're a joke. You let me know when you publish that paper.
      Look at the bright side, I'm just as bad. Calling you a racist piece of shit is nearly equivalent to you categorizing someone's biological traits by their "race"

    76. Re:Why is this a surprise? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      I wait with bated breath to read one of these papers.
      Being it will consist of your opinion dressed up as fact, it'll likely be laughed right out of the journal like most work done on such topics by your type. You seem to think that it's ok to construct evidence to fit your opinion. So no, your opinion does not count. What you can back up counts.

      You are woefully uneducated on how publishing in academia works. Something that would be "laughed out of the journal" would only get published in a predatory journal to begin with, at which point no one would bother reading it. Otherwise, it would never make it past the review stage. Second, opinion still counts for a lot since the author is free to interpret results in any way that doesn't contradict the results. I have read more papers than I can count which use the results as a starting point for the conclusions & discussion section rather than the endpoint.
      So yes, my opinion counts.

      With that pyrrhic victory out of the way, no one publishes on race in biology anymore. I said I "get to", not that I would or had any interest in doing so. Believe it or not, this is not a debated subject in biology circles. It is not anything interesting (unless you want to rile up the unwashed masses of Twitter), just a statistical background we scientists need to be aware of when designing studies and drawing conclusions; much like batch effects, standard deviations in differential expressions, or background metabolics in clinical samples. Race isn't a loaded word in genetics, it doesn't imply anything more than statistical patterns in a population. And your behavior is why we don't bring it up outside the university. It's just another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect with extra offense added.

      Your view is a minority view. "Race" has no place in biology, except as a very imprecise proxy for certain phenotypes. And you've shown that with your own words, only you're too dim to understand what it means for your argument.
      You paint criticism of your logic failures as tantrums, also a sign that you're just not very clever.

      No, it isn't. "My" view is what I've seen in the studies I've conducted, and it is what my colleagues have seen in the studies they have conducted. You just don't understand how the statistics work, and as always, "ignorance more often begets confidence than does knowledge".

      It's not me, it's the scientific community at large. You can say it's just me, but it doesn't make it true.

      No, it's you and all the other simpletons. We that do actual genetics look at statistics, not skin color. I haven't seen a single study where skin color was used as a definition. Thinking back, I'm not sure I have ever seen a genetics study where it was used at all. We look at things on the molecular level.

      You're a joke. You let me know when you publish that paper.
      Look at the bright side, I'm just as bad. Calling you a racist piece of shit is nearly equivalent to you categorizing someone's biological traits by their "race"

      It's peculiar that you seem to think that your opinions are in any way comparable to my facts. If anything, you should compare yourself to anti-vax proponent Jenny McCarthy or anyone from the Flat Earth or Creationism organizations.

    77. Re:Why is this a surprise? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with your facts, they just don't support your conclusions. That's why you're a shitty supposed-biologist.
      Still waiting.

    78. Re:Why is this a surprise? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      I did conclude that you were qualified to ask if I wanted fries with that. Are you saying that you're not?

    79. Re:Why is this a surprise? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, that must have been the conclusion I was referring to.
      Do you consider yourself clever?
      When you honestly answer that question, I suspect you will understand why you fall prey to your own defeasible arguments.

    80. Re:Why is this a surprise? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      You're all over the place, so it's hard to tell. You have after all accused me of being racist while using sweeping categorizations and claimed to speak for a community that you clearly aren't a part of nor understand. Expecting rational or consistent behavior from you would make me a fool.

    81. Re:Why is this a surprise? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 0

      claimed to speak for a community that you clearly aren't a part of nor understand

      And you claim to speak for a community that by a vast majority doesn't agree with your viewpoints on the scientific applicability of race.
      Which makes us more credible? Your defeasible argument from an authority that your own peers don't recognize, or mine from a standpoint of basic logic and the determinations of your community as a whole?
      I vote me. So do most people. Carry on. I still await your paper on the scientific applicability of race as a proxy for genetic phenotypes.

    82. Re:Why is this a surprise? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      And you claim to speak for a community that by a vast majority doesn't agree with your viewpoints on the scientific applicability of race.
      Which makes us more credible? Your defeasible argument from an authority that your own peers don't recognize, or mine from a standpoint of basic logic and the determinations of your community as a whole?

      If you're wondering whom is more credible when it comes to genetics, the geneticist or the angry peasant cursing at the clouds, then I'm afraid the answer is the geneticist. Your "logic" is nothing but a rant based on morality, something that has no value when it comes to the natural sciences. And generally the civilized world dismisses the rantings of those that do not believe in evolution.

      I vote me. So do most people. Carry on. I still await your paper on the scientific applicability of race as a proxy for genetic phenotypes.

      Now you're speaking for most people on the planet as well? An impressive feat, well done.

    83. Re: Why is this a surprise? by eriqk · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how many arguments are merely arguments over definitions.

      This depends on your definition of "argument".

    84. Re: Why is this a surprise? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Clearly, your definition is wrong!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  2. well the average a merkin can hunt hambers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and neanderthals are universally considered smarter.

  3. 60 feet hey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is probably why very few wild animals will come within 60 feet of a person...

    (excluding urban, pet, farm, and zoo animals obviously)

  4. Neanderthals Are People Too by mentil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The more we learn about Neanderthals, the less inferior they seem compared to other hominids.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Neanderthals Are People Too by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

      You call them Neanderthals.

      I call them my relatives.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Neanderthals Are People Too by meglon · · Score: 1

      I call some of my relatives neanderthals too.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    3. Re:Neanderthals Are People Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call creimer a neanderthal because that's what he is in reality.

    4. Re:Neanderthals Are People Too by hey! · · Score: 2

      It all came from those views we were taught lining up hominids from the most primitive on the left to us on the right. Evolution isn't linear.

      Given what we know of Neanderthals now, it's kind of hard to imagine them standing just out of reach of an animal, spear in hand, and thinking, "Well, that's that. I guess I'll just have to starve."

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Neanderthals Are People Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prolly smart enough to not get pwned LIKE A LITTLE BITCH by a woman!!
      Prolly smart enough to know spears work, walls don't.
      Smart enough to use CAVE as a noun, not an verb.

      HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA, #MAGAtards!!!!!. Fuck you, #NOTMYPRESIDENT and your wall!!!!!

    6. Re:Neanderthals Are People Too by Sandman4761 · · Score: 2

      I've mostly been under the impression that Neanderthals were superior to humans in strength, intelligence, social structure, etc.. but humans required less energy to hunt / gather and hence survived resource bottlenecks much better (to the point that Neanderthals went extinct). Adaptability is paramount for a species to survive the long game.

    7. Re:Neanderthals Are People Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And humans probably bred fast than Neanderthals as well... less energy spend at hunting, more left for nooky-nooky :-)

    8. Re:Neanderthals Are People Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying we can use spears instead of walls to defend ourselves? That would be a lot more fun!

    9. Re: Neanderthals Are People Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one, welcome our new spear tossing border guard overlords.

    10. Re:Neanderthals Are People Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He left Slashdot three months ago and you're still bitching about him. Sad. Fucking sad.

    11. Re:Neanderthals Are People Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally, being "big strong orc" is a winning game in times of high resources. Adaptions like "can go longer periods of time without food" are pretty much wasted in high food environments.
      Until, of course, it becomes *highly* relevant.

    12. Re:Neanderthals Are People Too by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You call them Neanderthals.

      I call them my relatives.

      I think that they were all absorbed. My wife tells me that I am a Neanderthal. She's kidding, sorta - but aside from my facial features, which would be considered Italianesque, I'm built like what you see in the museums. I might be pursuaded to get a DNA test if that could be verified.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:Neanderthals Are People Too by Sique · · Score: 1
      So your relatives live somewhere between Duesseldorf and Mettmann in Germany (at least that's where the Neanderthal is). There is even a train station Neanderthal.

      The Neanderthal was named for the famous German church hymn writer Joachim Neander (Neumann), who translated his family name (Neumann, literally new man) into Greek: Neandros or Neander.

      Quite interesting, the name of the place, where the Homo neanderthalensis was found, is "valley of the New Man".

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    14. Re:Neanderthals Are People Too by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Reading the article, they had javelin throwers throw spears made to mimic the ones they found, because they reasoned that Neanderthals would be practiced spear throwers, and javelin throwers are the closest modern analogy to that. But that made me realize that yeah, to stay alive, Neanderthals probably practiced throwing spears, and taught the kids how to do it. Did they have spear racks near where they slept? Stand them up in the corner?

      It fascinates me for some reason that a given Neanderthal probably had a favorite spear that he practiced with a lot, killed a lot of things with, and was sad about when it finally broke. Who might have carved notches in it to mark kills. I imagine him trying to make another one just like the one he broke, trying to recreate the balance, length, and girth.

      There doesn't seem to be any reason that Neanderthals wouldn't nerd out about their tools the way we do now.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    15. Re: Neanderthals Are People Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So were Neandies nazis?

  5. Re: Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Right on. I mean, Neandies are so 1990s.

  6. No big anatomy advantage for human throving by vyvepe · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Documentaries I saw claimed that humans have significant anatomy advantage over neanderthals as for as throwing goes. Tha article tries to refute this argument of the previous studies:

    Proposals that features of the upper limbs of different species of Homo indicate that throwing only comes into play with H. sapiens are hampered by multiple issues. These include small sample sizes, human variation in populations, evidence that humeral robusticity and shape may not correlate with strains in weapon use, and a lack of clarity whether any single activity contributes to or offsets bone remodeling or robusticity. Others argue for an earlier emergence of throwing, showing that features necessary for accurate and powerful throwing are evidenced in H. erectus fossils. A recent find of an early Neanderthal dating to MIS 7 from Tourville-la-Rivière shows skeletal trauma consistent with repeated throwing, supporting the hypothesis that they were capable and frequent throwers.

    I'm curious what the result of the debate will be.

    1. Re:No big anatomy advantage for human throving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      go visit zoo with monkeys in it... they even know how to use rags as slingshots and throw rocks much farther than average human..

    2. Re:No big anatomy advantage for human throving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no doubting the Neanderthal could throw a spear. Raw power doesn't equate to accuracy though. That's the part that might be difficult to estimate using a human model. Just because the spears fly straight doesn't mean they were thrown. It just an efficient shape.

    3. Re:No big anatomy advantage for human throving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess evolution would weed out those that could not throw straight.

    4. Re:No big anatomy advantage for human throving by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If a Neanderthal would walk thorough NYC, or Paris, no one would turn around and look at him, as no one would find anything bizzare or odd looking about him.

      He is more or less white skinned, has mostly red hair or is blonde, is relatively tall and obviously because of his work habits muscular. Thats it. Put him a suit on a couch and don't let him run around to hunt, he just looks like you.

      I would go so far to claim that the idea that they did not wash and where dirty and filthy is absurd. They had music, so they most likely did dance, did sing, had a language, many languages actually. They painted caves, they cooked food, they lived in families/tribes, they buried their dead, they made weapons, used flint stone, used fire probably had ceramics ...

      Ancient humans, regardless what "race/species" were as smart as we are ... looking at the average /. post, probably smarter than we are. Just because they had no smart phones, did not ride on horses (yet), had no houses made from bricks etc. does not make them "dumb". They had no technology, but they still had brains.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:No big anatomy advantage for human throving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well neanderthals did die off... :-/

    6. Re:No big anatomy advantage for human throving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had no technology, but they still had brains.

      That's an example of the definition of dumb, dumbass.

    7. Re: No big anatomy advantage for human throving by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What cave was painted by Neanderthals?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re: No big anatomy advantage for human throving by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Plenty in Europe.

      https://www.seeker.com/cave-ar...

      Many pictures ... some cro magnon some neanderthals.

      But google is your friend.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  7. I can attest to this by cerberusss · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can attest to this. In high school, we got a couple of lessons in throwing javelins. The protocol was not well established, because a girl threw a javelin when someone else went to pick up theirs. Although the javelins were blunted, it got stuck in the calve muscles of their left leg. The wound was cleaned and the "victim" appeared in class again after a couple of days. This was over a distance of, say, ten meters (32 feet).

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    1. Re:I can attest to this by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine told me about a training accident in Aikido.
      She attacked with a wooden dagger, like in tis picture: https://www.karatemart.com/red... (ustthe first hi ton google search)
      While she got disarmed the "dagger" flew somewhere and she was thrown same way.
      For unfortunate bad luck, the dagger ended on the ground with its hilt just as he slammed there with her leg.
      The dagger went through her _trousers_ and through the covering Hakama https://www.qualitymartialarts... ... again just one of the first hits.

      Point is: the "piece of wood" went through two layers of cloth and through her calf. And that piece of wood was not even remotely sharpened to intend injury, it was blunt.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:I can attest to this by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      Wow, fascinating! Would not have expected that.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    3. Re:I can attest to this by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Neither did I ... accidents happen. Freak accidents, too.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  8. Spears ... by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the past, Neanderthal humans were believed to be largely close-distance hunters. A new paper in the journal Nature, based on actual outdoor tests with multiple test subjects throwing two wooden spears closely mimicking ancient spears found in various places at a target, surmises that spear throwing Neanderthals may in fact have been able to kill animals at distances of 60 feet or even greater. The authors found that targeting a wooden spear accurately at that distance takes skill, and even worked out the impact velocity of Neanderthal spears at such a distance. Nevertheless, Neanderthals with sufficient practice in spear throwing may very well have been capable of killing at distances far greater than previously thought. This changes the assumption that Neanderthals needed to get very close to animals in order to have a chance of killing them.

    I've always wondered where this myth came from that Neanderthals were unable to throw their spears any significant distance and needed to get up close and personal to get a kill. There was even this crazy hypothesis for a while that Neanderthals simply couldn't throw spears because of the structure of their shoulder bones. During tests with the Schöningens spears that German archaeologists conducted 20 years ago they found that modern athletes could throw replicas of the Schöningen spears up to 70 meters. A skilled spear man can hit something the size of the heart/lung area of a deer for example at a third and up to half that range. Modern day javelin throwers can hit a coconut at 20 meters, I'd expect palaeolithic hunters to be far more skilled. The Shöningen spears are over 300.000 years old and were already quite cleverly optimised for throwing and would have been made by proto-Neanderthals. The Schöningen find pretty much destroyed the idea that humans were basically carrion eaters until very recently in their history and only used spears along with fire to chase predators off their kills. They probably did that as well but they mostly seem to have been active hunters from very early on. Nevertheless there are still people sticking to the carrion eater theory.

    1. Re:Spears ... by Tailhook · · Score: 0

      Nevertheless there are still people sticking to the carrion eater theory.

      It is crucially important not to encourage or inspire any degree of "hunter" mentality; it is akin to warlike behavior and inherently masculine. Through several generations of careful narrative shaping we have managed to successfully inculcate the benign scavenger view into the mind of the contemporary snowflake and research such as this is not welcome. So please continue adhering to the orthodox view of vegan primitives, supplementing their diets only irregularly with the barest minimum quantities of meat.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:Spears ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      One of the biggest mysteries in human ancestry is not "how smart or skilled" ancient humans were, but:

      How dumb modern scientists are

      Apes hunt. Chimpanzee e.g.
      Apes use tools.
      Apes scare away leopards etc.
      Apes gang up for hunting, they make hunting parties, they hug each other before they depart into "chasers" and "distractors" and "killers".

      How dumb scientists are to believe old humans could not hunt, made spears as toys etc. is beyond me.

      The first thing in my mind if I see a tool is: oh, this is a tool for A. Obviously someone was doing A-things with that A-tool.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Spears ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a long time, there was a huge bias in our knowledge about Neanderthal anatomy. The first complete skeleton was that of an elderly individual suffering from severe arthritis, and its deformed features were extrapolated into the public consciousness forever since. Later finds have greatly improved the scientific knowledge, but the layman's image of Neanderthals as hunch-backed, gnarly cavemen continues.

    4. Re: Spears ... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It comes from a lack of data. If I force you to make a hypothesis about something you know little about, you will also come up with bad ideas. Old anthropologists weren't able to travel much, so mainly hypothesized based on what they had (which strangely, often turned out to be Marxist theory). Of course, some people hypothesize willingly and emotionally out of ignorance. If you want to see that in action, ask them if they think a fence is more effective then a wall. Then ask them which works better, brick or concrete. Should walls have windows? The vast majority of people with strong opinions on these points are ignorant.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re: Spears ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that is the problem. Ignorant scientists.

      If one would be used to have a basket close to the door and throw his used paper into it, Basketball style, he would not have the misconception a spear only flies 10 or 20 yards.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Spears ... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      What's bewildering me is the assumption that a single neanderthal has to accurately throw a spear to kill an animal.

      8 neanderthals throwing their spears at the same group of four animals are going to eat well that night, no matter how shit a throw they are.

  9. Shake-speare neanderthals vs sword-wielding lolis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Neanderthals Were Likely Able To Hunt Over Significant Distances With Spears

    Here is a bit of related reading from year 2013's Best of Slashdot:

    https://science.slashdot.org/story/13/03/13/1247255/manga-girls-beware-extra-large-eyes-caused-neanderthals-demise

    Manga Girls Beware: Extra Large Eyes Caused Neanderthal's Demise

    [BTW: the captcha for this comment is "unarmed"... Good bot AI-chan!]

  10. But... by meglon · · Score: 1

    I seems lost in this is the fact that you don't have to throw a spear to use it to hunt; any animal that will charge a hunter can be taken down with a firmly planted spear.... well... any animal a thrown spear can take down. Really big animals would take a team effort.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    1. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever hunted? Most animals don't normally charge at you, that's very rare and quite undesirable even with firearms, they normally run away from you. if you want to hunt you should be faster than your pray, which we're not or be able to reach it from a distance.

    2. Re:But... by spth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As the 1999 article Die Recken von Schöningen – 400 000 Jahre Jagd mit dem Speer discusses, throwing spears matters, animals will flee at a certain distance of a perceived threat. For most animals this is less than 30 m. The Schöningen spears make practical hunting weapons up to about 30 m distance.

      The 1999 article also argues that in some situations throwing spears is more effective than using a bow: Animals learn to associate the characteristic noise from firing an arrow from a bow with danger; triggering a flight reflex that makes them start to move while the arrow is still in flight. This can be a problem when hunting with bows. On the other hand, there is no such noise when throwing spears

    3. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no such noise when throwing spears

      You forgot the shouting of the attack name and battle cry...

      CAP === 'salami'

    4. Re:But... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Animals learn to associate the characteristic noise from firing an arrow from a bow with danger
      Yes, but they also associate the throwing movement with danger. Even if hey never got hit or anyone of their pack got hit.

      And ... you only hear an arrow when it is to late. Either more or less hitting you or passing besides you. From the perspective of the shooter an arrow makes nearly no noise at all, however the bow does.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:But... by meglon · · Score: 1
      I'll combine my response to you with my response to the AC right above you. The AC is suffering from the myopia of now, which you don't realize you've answered.

      .... animals will flee at a certain distance of a perceived threat. For most animals this is less than 30 m.

      .... Animals learn to associate the characteristic noise from firing an arrow from a bow with danger....

      The neanderthal population peak for Eurasia was a couple hundred thousand; unlike today, they weren't so ubiquitous. Animals don't posses some supernatural ability to identify predators when they first encounter them (as a species).... see what happened to the dodo when it first met humans. It takes time and constant reinforcement for that to happen. What we see "now" is hundreds of thousands of years of reinforcements; what was then was at best a minor nuisance. Add into that the mega-fauna that was still present, and you have larger animals that would have an even more limited reason for learning humans were dangerous.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    6. Re:But... by meglon · · Score: 1

      My first hunting trip with my dad was when i was 9 in 1972. No, i didn't get my whitetail, neither did my dad. But thanks for asking.

      Try placing yourself back in time 100,000 years when the neanderthal population may have been 100,000 (total for everywhere). Do you think animals then had the same conditioning to fear us as they do now? You work with what you have; they had spears. If they couldn't throw far enough to take down their prey, i'm sure they'd come up with a different way of doing things... or all die of starvation in a couple months. As the species lasted a couple hundred thousand years, that ELE starvation obviously didn't happen.

      You're thinking like a modern human, not a neanderthal who's only going to eat if they're successful; no pressure.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    7. Re:But... by q_e_t · · Score: 1
      GP:

      from firing an arrow from a bow

      The GP did not say it was the arrow that made the noise.

  11. Silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they even need research for this? Javelin throw can reach over 100m. Even for Neanderthals this shouldn't have been much of an issue, perhaps even greater distances given their greater physical prowess over HS and believe me, you'll acquire the skill if you need it to survive, I've seen natives achieving better results at bow fishing with radically less "technologically advanced" tools just because of the combination of constant practice and the sheer fact that you need to eat every day.

  12. No surprise here by spth · · Score: 2

    I wonder why this study is considered big news now. It confirms the findings of German scientists from the late 90s (see e.g. Die Recken von Schöningen – 400 000 Jahre Jagd mit dem Speer, more publications referenced in the German Wikipedia and the new article in Nature). The design of the experiments seems similar. They even chose the very same spear (Schöningen 2) to base their replicas on.

    Replicating earlier results is important and useful. Still I don't get why the results are reported by the media as if they were a surprise.

  13. What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...ever

  14. Fun combat video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's an interesting YouTube video that shows combat between swords and spears: Spears are better than swords: scientific proof

  15. So was GEICO in the spear making business? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killing prey at up to 60 feet.... So easy a caveman can do it.

  16. (stares at people who never heard of atlatl) by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Um, spear throwing sticks have existed for a very very long time, and precede humans leaving Africa, so I don't see why Neanderthals couldn't have them too.

    With those you get a very long range.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re: (stares at people who never heard of atlatl) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was wondering if someone would mention an atlatl too. The informal studies I've seen with an atlatl give 2-3.5x range over a traditional spear. I have a few atlatls but the arrows I made myself from bamboo aren't as best as they could be. There is still a hole in my front door because I never thought one would go that far.

      There is also an amentum which is basically just a small loop of rope tied around a spear that causes the spear to twist fast when thrown, like a bullet. They say this also increases distance by up to 300% but I've never been able to see much difference with the ones I own. But the Greeks used them for a reason so it must be true.

      But the point still stands with all of the ancient weapons, that back in the day you had millions of people needing to eat and survive and wage war on a daily basis and using weapons in clever ways was part of every day life. If we had spear regiments today with people training 3 hours a day with them for years, then we could talk just as informed as they were back in the day, but we just don't have that.

  17. Scary thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least none of them could breed with Patrick Mahomes, could have killed anything.

  18. Throwing Spears by LazarusQLong · · Score: 1

    I have made and thrown throwing spears... They are a significant departure from a thrusting spear. I can honestly tell you that I have hit a running man in the head, when I was a teen, at about 60 yards. It brought him down. Didn't kill him, but did cause him to roll around on the ground holding the wound. Had it been a smaller critter, I would have aimed for the body, then it may have killed. So, yeah, duh. When your weapon is what keeps you fed, you become proficient in its use!

    --
    "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
  19. Niggers appropriating white culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If SCIENCE proves whites were the first to put bones through noses, I will lose my shit.

  20. News at 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You get better if you have enough practice? What a joke!

  21. Neanderthals devolved ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neanderthals may in fact have been able to kill animals at distances of 60 feet or even greater.

    Neanderthals devolved into liberal democrats who, sadly, are able to kill freedom at distances up to the width of the U.S.