The spine of a horse. Photos: © Henri Granjean/ Inrap
Posted on 08/17/2014 12:02:34 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
A site in southwestern France found to be rich in the bones of horses and other large herbivores has provided important insights into the hunting and scavenging habits of Neanderthals.
A team of archaeologists from the French archaeological agency Inrap have unearthed hundreds of bones at the Middle Paleolithic site in Quincieux dating back 35,000 to 55,000 years.
The work was started due to roadworks in the area, with the outstanding discovery prompting local authorities to extend the time available for excavations.
The excavation of the prehistoric site, on a hill overlooking the old bed of the Saone River, revealed hundreds of animal bones interspersed with flints.
All animal species found there were suited to a cold climate and a steppe environment.
Several hundred skeletal remains belonged mostly to large herbivores: horse, mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, bison and reindeer.
The remains of carnivores were considerably fewer, represented by a bear skull and a few bones of a wolf.
The bones were there as a result of Neanderthal hunting or scavenging, according to the archaeologists. The Neanderthals exploited the carcasses, they said, with some bones showing traces of man-made fractures.
They noticed that many long bones were missing, suggesting that the meatier parts of the animals had been carried away to inhabited sites.
Archaeologists normally only have an opportunity to explore habitation sites in connection with Neanderthals. In this case, they had an opportunity to explore a carcase processing area.
(Excerpt) Read more at horsetalk.co.nz ...
The spine of a horse. Photos: © Henri Granjean/ Inrap
The Neandertal Enigma"Frayer's own reading of the record reveals a number of overlooked traits that clearly and specifically link the Neandertals to the Cro-Magnons. One such trait is the shape of the opening of the nerve canal in the lower jaw, a spot where dentists often give a pain-blocking injection. In many Neandertal, the upper portion of the opening is covered by a broad bony ridge, a curious feature also carried by a significant number of Cro-Magnons. But none of the alleged 'ancestors of us all' fossils from Africa have it, and it is extremely rare in modern people outside Europe." [pp 126-127]
by James Shreeve
in local libraries
Not to get off topic, but is was wondering something about the evolution of man... Modern man (Homo Sapien) has different races - Black, White, Asian, etc. But what about previous human species, such as Homo Erectus. H. Erectus was in Africa, Asia and several places in between. Were they all the same race, or were there different races too?
I’ve wondered this because all depictions of our ancestors seem to show them as a single race, but modern man has different races. Why is there such diversity in modern man?
Apparently the French have not changed too much, they still like to eat horses.
Exactly.
Now if there were any evidence that the Neanderthals were riding the horses — that would be very cool.
Color in modern man is significantly influenced by the need to absorb vitamin D when it is formed in the skin oils and absorbed into the body. This is why you should not shower for several hours after sun exposure if you want your natural D for strong bones and teeth. It is now believed that Neanderthals were blue eyed and fair skinned, enabling them to live in the North. When dark skinned Africans moved north they could not survive well until there was some mingling with the Neanderthals, conferring the light gene. This “ginger” gene is found extensively in the British Isles and Scotland. I believe my Scots ancestors husband had it in spades along with faint brow ridges, heavy bones, a very hairy body, and a warrior temperament.
It is unlikely we will ever find proof that H. Erectus had different skin colors unless they can find DNA and a relevant marker like the “ginger gene”.
Myth # 2. I get enough from the sun.
Not likely, says Dr. Ting, since sun exposure is hard to quantify and our skin doesn’t absorb vitamin D as easily as we age. Healthy adults should aim to get the RDA (recommended dietary allowance) of 600-800 International Units (IU) from fortified foods like milk and cereal. Ask your doctor what dose is best for you.
Myth # 3. I sit by a window all day, so my levels are probably fine.
Actually, you won’t absorb any D if you’re behind glass.
http://www.healthmonitor.com/your-health/written-article/4-myths-about-vitamin-d
For modern first world humans you are absolutely right. The absorbsion mechanism evolved with scant body covering in all but cold weather, little bathing and removing skin oils. It has also been found that Vitamin D is involved in depression, especially the winter kind called SAD. For that 1,000 to 2,000 IUs may be needed. Make sure your doctor actually knows about these new findings when asking advice. I worked in a medical school. Doctors don’t learn much about nutrition.
You are ignoring the possibility of convergent evolution. The same environmental pressures that gave the Neanderthals light skin would have been working on Africans as they moved northward. After many generations, pigmentation would have changed.
I find it hard to believe that Europeans became white solely from Neanderthals give that Neanderthal genes account for only a few percent in European genomes.
Well now you've done it.
nothing wrong with eating horse meat. It is actually quite good, if cooked properly. Trigger, Sea Biscuit, and Budweiser Clydesdales aside, A horse is a four legged furry mammal, Homo sapiens has a very long history of eating any four legged furry mammal that they could get their hands on.
Yes, you may be right, lactose tolerance mutated only about 8 thousand years ago as steppe people moved into Europe.
“All animal species found there were suited to a cold climate and a steppe environment.”
As we can see in the hard evidence, climate change is very real. For example, the average climate of the northern hemisphere is so cold as to cause the ground to be buried under a thousand feet of ice. The cycle of glacier on/glacier off takes place every several hundred thousand years and can be clearly seen in many ways. Even as the science is settled that glaciation has taken place, the causes are still undergoing vigorous debate.
With respect to the idea that humans are causing harmful changes to the climate at this very moment, I am waiting for some peer-reviewed papers that propose what the optimum climate is for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.
That nobody seems interested in this vital comparison indicates that climate is primarily being studied for other purposes. Since all the urgent demands that flow from today’s climate science coincidentally converge on policy solutions that involve statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, the bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.
Perhaps just a little late for Neanderthals, but a few years ago some who have studied the Chauvet paintings up close claimed to see reins on some of the horses. Doesn’t seem to have gained much traction.
Thanks! Interesting, reins, Chauvet cave paintings...
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/483785184944852252/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
