Posted on 03/08/2002 3:33:16 PM PST by blam
Did Humans and Neandertals Battle for Control of the Middle East?
By Ben Harder
for National Geographic News March 8, 2002
Thousands of years before Christians, Muslims, and Jews became locked in dispute over the Middle East, humans wrested control of the region from its true original inhabitants, the Neandertals, in what one scientist compares to a prolonged game of football.
The Neandertals, stocky and intelligent humanoids, lived in Europe and Western Asia for thousands of years before the first humans settled in the area. Then true humans moved into the region from Africa.
Face-to-Face Fight
The new arrivals settled the land, and the resident Neandertals eventually died out or moved on as the humans continued to spread outward. By 30,000 years ago, humans had occupied most of the Old World, and Neandertals had disappeared from the globe.
Exactly how ownership of the Middle East was resolved between Neandertals and modern humans—and whether it was bloody in nature—remains a mystery. One thing that's beyond doubt, however, is that the Neandertals gave their successors a run for the land of milk and honey, according to Ofer Bar-Yosef, an archaeologist at Harvard University.
"The battle between Homo sapiens and Neandertals was like a football game," he said last month in Boston at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "The Neandertals were the losers. They were good players, but they just lost the game."
Like an exciting Superbowl match, the outcome of the confrontation wasn't a forgone conclusion from the beginning, Bar-Yosef said.
"Change of Possession"
The "game," Bar-Yosef said, consisted of several changes in field position—long periods of time during which the two groups alternated ownership of present-day Israel and the Middle East.
He and his colleague John Shea of the State University of New York at Stony Brook investigated how humans managed to out-compete the Neandertals that already lived in the area.
Their analysis focused on two archaeological sites in Israel, called Skhul (pronounced "school") and Kafzeh. Archaeological evidence excavated at the sites years ago indicated that people had lived in the caves, at least occasionally, for more than 130,000 years.
Most remarkable about the finds was the discovery that the caves had changed hands between Neandertals and modern humans no fewer than three times.
In the upper layers of the dirt floors in both caves, archaeologists found bones of humans. Lower down, in layers that were deposited between 47,000 to 65,000 years ago, human bones were absent, but researchers excavated Neandertal remains. That discovery corresponds to a period of Neandertal occupation of the site that lasted nearly 20,000 years.
To the researchers' surprise, however, they uncovered more human remains beneath those of the Neandertals in both caves. These ancient bones dated to an era that stretched from 80,000 to 130,000 years ago. From the deepest layers of dirt beneath the cave floors, which accumulated more than 130,000 years ago, they again found Neandertal bones.
The finding indicated that Skhul and Kafzeh—and, presumably, much or all of the surrounding region—passed from human hands back into Neandertal control between 65,000 and 80,000 years ago.
Humans were apparently unsuccessful in their first bid to take over the region.
A Reason for Return
What caused ownership of the caves to flip-flop? Where did the Neandertals retreat to when they first surrendered the region to the newcomers from Africa? And what made the Neandertals reclaim the caves later? Bar-Yosef and Shea set out to answer these questions.
Based on their analysis of the tools and hearths made by the early residents of Israel, the researchers concluded that modern humans didn't use superior technology or intelligence to take over the site. The two groups seem to have been evenly matched in those departments.
Neandertals "were not dumb," Bar-Yosef said. "They weren't making any bone tools or seashell ornaments," like humans were at the time, but "they were digging their hearths exactly like modern humans," he said.
The slight differences in the sophistication of stone tools each group produced could not explain any superiority the humans may have had, the scientists said. And when it came to brute strength, the muscular Neandertals had a clear advantage.
Perhaps Mother Nature had a key role in the power play over the region. Climate changes may have coaxed humans out of Africa and into the region, and encouraged Neandertals already living there to spread outward into other parts of Asia and southeastern Europe.
But a climatic reversal also could have turned the tables. "Neandertal populations [may have been] driven south by rapid climate change around 75,000 years ago," Bar-Yosef said at the meeting in Boston.
Europe and Northern Asia were experiencing a cool era at that time, and even hearty Neandertals probably would have found the warmer climates to the south enticing. They pushed back into the region, probably from the Caucasus region to the north, and drove the humans then living there into retreat, Bar-Yosef suggested.
Only a second advance by humans thousands of years later—one that was more permanently successful—ultimately settled the question of which species would prevail.
In a separate presentation at the Boston meeting, archaeologist Mary Stiner of the University of Arizona in Tucson suggested that the later advance by humans might have been set in motion by growing population densities that forced some members of the species to push out of Africa.
ummm...to sell magazines by superimposing what may be modern circumstances and emotion of conflict and sympathy or hatred?
And somehow through association applying the visuals of Neanderthals and humans to the present inhabitants?
Hey that's independent thought. You're not suppose to question what scientists tell you. If you don't stop, you will end up considering alternative explanations for the evidence. Only right wing extremists do that. /sarcasm
Yes, and their ancient territory was the land around Mecca.
Some of them could be VERY dense.
Oh- You were talking about population numbers, weren't you? Sorry, my bad!
Not to go into much detail, but a lot of my childhood was spent in poverty, with my family receiving some kind of gov. assistance. I was raised with the typical attitudes of the desperately poor: our situation is not our fault, it is the fault of the rich who keep stealing from us; the rich, of course, are evil, mean, conservatives who, if we stupidly elect them, will take away even the pittance we have; the liberal Democrats really care for us and understand how horrid the rich conservatives are, and they'll make sure we're taken care of, etc. I believed that if I put my faith in the government, my life would get better. Except that I didn't see the government actually providing anything except promises, and no one lives well on the dole. I desperately wanted out of poverty, and gradually, I came to realize that the liberal attitudes of the poor (which are different than the liberal attitudes of the rich) weren't going to get me there. Plus, I joined the Navy, which tends, by its nature, to be crawling with conservatives, and I gradually came to see that "those people" were not the evil brutes I had always been taught they were. Add to that my observations during the 80's, that liberals engage in a lot of fear-mongering (one example: Reagan was just waiting for the slightest excuse to set off WWIII) that ultimately proves false, every time, and I lost my faith in liberalism. Also, there is the liberal's single-minded devotion to "abortion rights," which really contradicted everything they claimed about being compassionate (by my thinking, the conservatives should have been pro-abortion, since they were, as I had been taught, evil and heartless). The last straw, for me, was when the Dems nominated Klintoon in 1992. Everything about him struck me wrong; I've had a very miserable experience with a man extremely like Klintoon, and I knew he would be very bad for the country. So I went and changed my voter registration to Republican, and here I am, today.
Since the journey to the right side was very long and involved a lot of self-reflection, no, no one came with me. I was always a skeptical, deeply thinking person; I have a feeling that without that trait, I'd still cling to the liberal "values" I was raised with.
Sorry for the long answer!
There was a thread a year or so ago,
claiming the Neandertals interbred with Cro-Magnum.
The claim was made that red hair is one of the Neandertal traits,
as in Irish, and Scotish type redheads.
(Really hard to think of Ann Margaret as a Neandertal.)
If they did in fact interbreed, than they are the same species.
Don't be coy -- we've had this discussion before. They do it for publicity, to better establish their academic "reputations" and to sell whatever books they've written. National Geographic is a joke. It peddles whatever pseudo-scientific line is trendy at any given moment. Great pictures, though!
When referring to others as poor dolts it's a good idea to check your own spelling. ;-)
BTW it is better to be an exDemMom than an exMomDem :(
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.