Infanticide and Cannibalism

[Lemur]

More news of the weird, although in this case it's a weird theory. Why do humans lack body hair? Nobody has a good answer. All of the other great apes have lustrous coats, whereas even the hairiest guy at the beach is, by comparison, relatively bare.

The new award-winning theory is weird and creepy, and who knows, possibly correct:

Harris' paper describes Stone Age societies in which the mother of a newborn had to decide whether she had the resources to nurture her baby. The newborn's appearance probably influenced whether the mother kept or abandoned it. An attractive baby was more likely to be kept and reared.

Harris' theory is that this kind of parental selection may have been an important force in evolution. If Stone Age people believed that hairless babies were more attractive than hairy ones, this could explain why humans are the only apes lacking a coat of fur. Harris suggests that Neanderthals must have been furry in order to survive the Ice Age. Our species would have seen them as "animals" and potential prey. Harris' hypothesis continues that Neanderthals went extinct because human ancestors ate them.

[InsaneApache]

Humans have the same amount of hair as chimps, they're just a lot finer. That's what I heard anyway.

[CrossLOPER]

Neanderthals went extinct because human ancestors ate them.[/indent]

Not unbelievable.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why do humans lack body hair? Nobody has a good answer.

There is an answer: sexual preference.

The first evolutionary mechanism, survival of the fittest, seems clearly out. There is little use for what's let of your visible hair. Try it: don't shave your chest and leg hair and stand outside in minus fifteen degrees - it doesn't really help.
I do believe the second evolutionary mechanism is at work here: sexual selection. You might not think it, but somewhere deep down women dig a nice, furry back on males.
On intuition, I'm not convinced by Rich-Harris' third selection process: maternal preference.

-For a start, male body and facial hair are a product of puberty, it develops at the same time as other reproductive characteristics, which points in the direction of sexual evolutionary mechanisms. (Unless one would claim that our poor homo sapiens children would need to 'hide' their hair from their mothers until they've reached puberty, the age at which kids become independent from maternal care.
-Secondly, there is a clear distinction between female and male hair patterns, which again undermines the first and third mechanisms, pointing to the second.
-Thirdly, the reason for both males and females having thick armpit and pubic hair is only explainable as a means of sexual reproduction: preservation of wildly arousing scents.
-Fourthly, the wide variety of different hair patterns amongst human groups become only apparent at maturity.
It is not predictable from the appearance of a baby what his or her hair will look like. So mothers / parents would've been unable to choose between offspring based on this criterium.

[Faust|]

The new award-winning theory is weird and creepy, and who knows, possibly correct:

Harris' paper describes Stone Age societies in which the mother of a newborn had to decide whether she had the resources to nurture her baby. The newborn's appearance probably influenced whether the mother kept or abandoned it. An attractive baby was more likely to be kept and reared.

Harris' theory is that this kind of parental selection may have been an important force in evolution. If Stone Age people believed that hairless babies were more attractive than hairy ones, this could explain why humans are the only apes lacking a coat of fur. Harris suggests that Neanderthals must have been furry in order to survive the Ice Age. Our species would have seen them as "animals" and potential prey. Harris' hypothesis continues that Neanderthals went extinct because human ancestors ate them.

This means that the mother spent 9 months being pregnant and risked her life giving birth, and THEN decides whether she will keep the baby or not?

"Harris' paper describes Stone Age societies in which the mother of a newborn had to decide whether she had the resources to nurture her baby."

But she has already expended great resources being pregnant, and has probably been a less productive member for the last few months, costing yet more resources that would have otherwise been available.

I fail to see how there could be such a dearth of resources to allow such a decision about the fate of the newborn to take place, while at the same time the population is so robust that they can afford to abandon a potential new member when much commitment has already been involved in its development.

That cuteness of babies and our inclination to nurture them are linked is plausible, but I've heard that elsewhere.

[ShadeHonestus]

Very interesting article, however after examination it is full of holes and lacks perception from the school of anthropology.

First is the notion that Homo neanderthalensis became extinct because we humans hunted them. Right off the bat he makes a terrible error in calling them ancestors as we evolved from separate populations of what was most likely Homo erectus. However it is unclear if we are cousins or great, great, great cousins 4 times removed as there are gaps in those separate branches. We do know, with a degree of certainty that the divergence occurred about 700,000 years ago. His notion of hunting Neanderthals is problematic from more than one standpoint. First let’s look at Neanderthals and their physiology. For anyone who is familiar with American Football, consider Barry Sanders and his super human ability to move and elude tacklers. Neanderthals skeletal record shows us not the slow lumbering man of the silver screen, but rather a quite robust yet extremely athletic fellow. Indeed to see him on the football field would make Barry Sanders appear in the slow motion caveman. Second the Neanderthal was a cultural animal; they took care of their injured and buried their dead, the latter being both of ceremony and practicality. Third, the Neanderthal had a large brain capacity, even larger than humans, however functionally different they did have limited capacity for learning and understanding. In my and many peoples opinion these factors do not make Neanderthals conducive to human prey.

Second, the loss of body hair is generally accepted as occurring at many different stages along the road of evolution. In fact, the hairy state of Neanderthals is quite doubtful. They would probably have had the same amount of body hair as most modern Northern Europeans. Perhaps the greatest marked state of body hair loss came at the time of Homo ergaster and Homo erectus. This model is supported by a number of factors, heat dispersion (which was a very strong evolutionary factor) parasites, and cultural selection. One primary principle to remember in the evolution of man, is the importance of the conservation of energy. Many of our earliest ancestors such as Australopithecus aferensis and Homo habilis were complete misfits for their environment in functionality, but the conservation of energy due to their physiology was evolutionary gold as it allowed for increased childbearing.

Third is the abundance of Neanderthal extinction models that hold a lot more water. Remember that the zenith of their population was extremely small and this was in decline prior to the Homo sapiens' migration from Africa. The Neanderthals died a relatively slow death in comparison with their numbers. They were in fact having problems adapting to their environment and with the onset of superior competition for resources, they were fast tracked for failure.

In conclusion the hypothesis is largely bunk taking too much for granted and ignoring evolutionary evidence. Now, hair loss within the species Homo sapiens can be attributed to culture behavior such as natural selection, but only to a point. Hair loss even within our own species is, to at least an equal amount, a result of evolution and we can see this in the lack or abundance of hair within the isolated and relatively independent centers of civilization's development.

[Lemur]

In conclusion the hypothesis is largely bunk taking too much for granted and ignoring evolutionary evidence.

Yes, but much more importantly, it's amusing. I particularly like the image of our ancestors eying their Neanderthal neighbors with culinary intent.

[ShadeHonestus]

Yes, but much more importantly, it's amusing. I particularly like the image of our ancestors eying their Neanderthal neighbors with culinary intent.

Yes and I have to admit my own amusement. A few people who I sent the article too within this field of study ranged from "lol" "interesting..." "and my favorite was "Are you sure this wasn't a National Enquirer misprint?". Most of which ended in a line with something to the effect of "with respect to the research and contribution."

[Papewaio]

I thought it would have been the standard Homo S.S. response when encountering a new tribe to either:

a) Trade.
b) Wipe out all the men and children and take the women as mates (even if they or the offspring are sterile).

Plenty of human tribes have got driven into the mountains and away from more fertile lands by larger more cooperative populations. We have done it to each other, so why not to our closest cousins?

[Hosakawa Tito]

Neanderthals went extinct because human ancestors ate them.

Tastes like chicken, hairy, beetle browed, plug ugly chicken. Tough and stringy too.....needs more salt, maybe a dash of A1

[BDC]

I thought it would have been the standard Homo S.S. response when encountering a new tribe to either:

a) Trade.
b) Wipe out all the men and children and take the women as mates (even if they or the offspring are sterile).

Plenty of human tribes have got driven into the mountains and away from more fertile lands by larger more cooperative populations. We have done it to each other, so why not to our closest cousins?

It's true, they ended up pushed to the ends of continents and islands. That might have been the weather though as well. Hence why southern Spain was a last hideout.

To be honest, given the choice between hunting a deer or someone much stronger, more heavily built, and as intelligent as me, I know which one I'd go for.

[ShadeHonestus]

Papewaio
There is some contention for trade between the two or at least very limited learning by Neanderthals in some of their artifacts. Mostly conjecture at this point and if they did, they were clearly unable to keep up with the advancing tech of modern man as they clearly plateaued during the time of co-existence.

There is little doubt that the encounters may have at times been violent, but not in a prey-hunter relationship. There may have even been acts of eating the neanderthal dead, especially the marrow, none from the archaeological record, but it could have happened. The systematic hunting of Neanderthals for food is rather absurd though and so is any notion of its impact on desirable children. The limited and dispersed populations alone wouldn't have allowed for a homo sapien subsistence model based on Neanderthal marrow. As far as the capturing of mates, there was one such skeleton, a child, found in Spain which one claims has features of both, however further research has proven this theory to be lacking.

The last record of Neanderthals existence I believe was in a remote Croatian area about 28-30,000 years ago. This is typical of any competition and the retreat of those losing the battle for sustenance.

[edit] the date on the croatian finds had been revised, Southern Spain still holds the most recent at ca. 29,000

[Adrian II]

The last record of Neanderthals existence I believe was in a remote Croatian area about 28-30,000 years ago. This is typical of any competition and the retreat of those losing the battle for sustenance.

[edit] the date on the croatian finds had been revised, Southern Spain still holds the most recent at ca. 29,000

Keep your hair on and revise them again, Shade: there is a whole population right outside my door.

[ShadeHonestus]

Keep your hair on and revise them again, Shade: there is a whole population right outside my door.

Quick, you figure the proper libation and I'll bring the Chinaware...after my body wax

[Papewaio]

To be honest, given the choice between hunting a deer or someone much stronger, more heavily built, and as intelligent as me, I know which one I'd go for.

Depends if you want to eat them or have there women. Genghis Khan certainly would have been of the opinion of kill all the men, ride all their horses and if time permits rape all the women.

The limited and dispersed populations alone wouldn't have allowed for a homo sapien subsistence model based on Neanderthal marrow.

If they did eat Neanderthal (which IMDHO I doubt very highly) it would have been as either an occassional side dish at most or more likely as a meal of last resort.

As far as the capturing of mates, there was one such skeleton, a child, found in Spain which one claims has features of both, however further research has proven this theory to be lacking.

I don't think they would have captured females for breeding, just for 'release'.

[Adrian II]

Quick, you figure the proper libation and I'll bring the Chinaware...after my body wax

Soy sauce, methinks. Some spring vegetables, lemon... a bottle of Merlot... check..

Now where did I stow that landing-net?

[ShadeHonestus]

If they did eat Neanderthal (which IMDHO I doubt very highly) it would have been as either an occassional side dish at most or more likely as a meal of last resort.
I don't think they would have captured females for breeding, just for 'release'.

of course

Soy sauce, methinks. Some spring vegetables, lemon... a bottle of Merlot... check..

Now where did I stow that landing-net?

These are big lads...go for the 9 Iron.

[gunslinger]

Neanderthals went extinct because human ancestors ate them.[/indent]

Awesome! Now can we please start a debate about how evil we all are because our ancestors commited genocide against the Neanderthals? This is pure gold. We're ALL guilty of this one. It's just too bad their aren't any Neanderthals around to whine and moan and sue the government for reparations. Then we'd have a real story.

[Adrian II]

Awesome! Now can we please start a debate about how evil we all are because our ancestors commited genocide against the Neanderthals? This is pure gold. We're ALL guilty of this one. It's just too bad their aren't any Neanderthals around to whine and moan and sue the government for reparations. Then we'd have a real story.

Oh crap!...

*hides huge side of Neanderthal beef*

[ShadeHonestus]

Awesome! Now can we please start a debate about how evil we all are because our ancestors commited genocide against the Neanderthals? This is pure gold. We're ALL guilty of this one. It's just too bad their aren't any Neanderthals around to whine and moan and sue the government for reparations. Then we'd have a real story.

Well of course we must further this that it is indeed evil Europeans who did this, and no doubt all their descendants would become American. One major problem and something you never see much of in representative documentaries and pop culture movies and that is that Neanderthals and the early homo sapiens, including those in europe, had dark skin.

Give Hitler a spin in his grave and give the tin hatters who think only brown people get bombed an extra piece of tin foil.

[Ice]

Awesome! Now can we please start a debate about how evil we all are because our ancestors commited genocide against the Neanderthals? This is pure gold. We're ALL guilty of this one. It's just too bad their aren't any Neanderthals around to whine and moan and sue the government for reparations. Then we'd have a real story.

That insurance commercial comes to mind...

[Byzantine Prince]

Didn't you guys see the Colbert interview with that anthropologist/archaelogist? she said we lost our body hair because we started sweating and our skin became moist enough so we didn't get too hot. If you look at any monkey's skin it's perfectly dry even in the tropics. It's not like they need that fur for the cold of the equatorial climate. :P

Also I bet there are several reasons, not just one.

[ShadeHonestus]

Didn't you guys see the Colbert interview with that anthropologist/archaelogist? she said we lost our body hair because we started sweating and our skin became moist enough so we didn't get too hot. If you look at any monkey's skin it's perfectly dry even in the tropics. It's not like they need that fur for the cold of the equatorial climate. :P.

Well that's comparing apples and oranges. Its about the mechanics of dispensing heat. If you take most furry animals you'll see they have many mechanics that humans don't posses for cooling the body, panting, long thin ears, etc etc. That example you give of apes and humans appears as if its a smoking gun to dispute this theory until you study how the two operate differently within their environments. I don't really want to go into the environments and habitats of every stop along the evoutionary ladder and how their physiology adapts on each branch from the divergence from apes. Its best explained that walking upright, sweat glands, and the loss of hair allows homo sapiens to travel much much further on a given quantity of water in every environment than lets say a chimp or a gorilla.

And yes, this is one factor of a few, but this one is golden...

[Navaros]

More news of the weird, although in this case it's a weird theory. Why do humans lack body hair? Nobody has a good answer. All of the other great apes have lustrous coats, whereas even the hairiest guy at the beach is, by comparison, relatively bare.

Humans are not and never were great apes, therefore it is illogical and incorrect to use the word "other great apes" in that statement. The one thing has no such relation to the other.

Upon reading the crackpot idea quoted in the original post, I see that Harris makes the same error.

[Faust|]

Humans are not and never were great apes, therefore it is illogical and incorrect to use the word "other great apes" in that statement. The one thing has no such relation to the other.

Upon reading the crackpot idea quoted in the original post, I see that Harris makes the same error.

They are. All of them are in the same family I believe.

[ShadeHonestus]

They are. All of them are in the same family I believe.

Yes, its Hominidae a sub family of Hominoidea where the other branch is Hylobatidae. Now there was at one time a consideration of a third family Pongidae which leads some to the confusion of human's classification of great apes, but Pongidae is a dead taxonomy after further advancements in DNA tech shows the relations clearer. There are of course brances of Hominidae itself, but everything within it are considered great apes.

[Ja'chyra]

Hmm, 2 thoughts on this.

1. Wouldn't this mean that the bible is wrong? Whodathunkit.

2. If all modern humans originally came from Africa would that mean that Africans are really to blame for slavery?

[Fisherking]

@ShadeHonestus

Some article I read said they thought they had found musical instruments of some sort... (maybe flutes) in association with Neanderthal remains. I can't remember clearly but I had also thought that adal-adals may have also been used by them. Now of course they had been around longer than we had at the time, but what exactly were the tools they just couldn't comprehend the use of that we had advanced to by that date?

The more I have learned about them…or at least the thoughts and theories of their culture/life style the more I wonder why they actually went extinct. They surely would have kicked our butts in a fight and seem more like people to avoid rather than pick fights with. I can't see having him as a favored item on the menu.

[Sjakihata]

Humans are not and never were great apes, therefore it is illogical and incorrect to use the word "other great apes" in that statement. The one thing has no such relation to the other.

Upon reading the crackpot idea quoted in the original post, I see that Harris makes the same error.

And the earth is only 6000 +/- years old ....

[SwordsMaster]

This is some thread title to stumble into just out of bed... Damn!

It is less creepy than i was beginning to imagine though.

What i am not sure about is why not throw all those theories together? I mean at this stage we all know that there is no singular reason why, therefore it must be a combination of reasons, and the more the merrier...