#Neandertals made #antibacterial ointment, but may not have known it

Yet another case of casting doubt on the intelligence and observational powers of our ancestors.

Could you have figured out how to make birch Tar or oil, or even started the fire needed to extract it.

If they had been as stupid and ignorant as modern man we would have died out many years ago.

A few ambiguous sites do not justify portraying Neandertals as a cannibalistic species. Portraying Neandertals as a “cannibal species” is sensationalised and unsupported by limited, site-specific, and ambiguous archaeological evidence. While some Neandertal sites show bone modifications from butchering, these are rare and context-dependent, and don't support widespread or systematic cannibalism often portrayed in media. 1. Archaeological ambiguity & equifinality: Cut marks, breakage, and bone fragments can result from various processes—mortuary rituals, animal scavenging, water transport, or post-depositional events—not just consumption. 2. Extremely limited frequency: Confirmed possible cannibalistic cases come from few sites among hundreds of Neandertal occupations, suggesting isolated events. 3. Context-dependent scenarios: Evidence often links to extreme circumstances like starvation, inter-group violence, or survival, not routine diet. 4. Taphonomic constraints: Fragmentation, small samples, missing data, and incomplete excavations limit behaviour inference. 5. Behavioural ecology: Neandertals were efficient large-game hunters, making reliance on human flesh unlikely and unnecessary. Sensational claims depict Neandertals as cannibalistic, distorting our view of an intelligent, resilient hominin. Such misinterpretations fuel pseudo-science and obscure the nuance needed to understand rare, context-specific behaviour. A cautious, evidence-based approach offers a fairer, more accurate view and avoids overgeneralisation. #Neandertals #Cannibalism #Paleoanthropology #HumanOrigins

Posted into CROSSFIRE @crossfire-HariTulsidas

A few ambiguous sites do not justify portraying Neandertals as a cannibalistic species. Portraying Neandertals as a “cannibal species” is sensationalised and unsupported by limited, site-specific, and ambiguous archaeological evidence. While some Neandertal sites show bone modifications from butchering, these are rare and context-dependent, and don't support widespread or systematic cannibalism often portrayed in media. 1. Archaeological ambiguity & equifinality: Cut marks, breakage, and bone fragments can result from various processes—mortuary rituals, animal scavenging, water transport, or post-depositional events—not just consumption. 2. Extremely limited frequency: Confirmed possible cannibalistic cases come from few sites among hundreds of Neandertal occupations, suggesting isolated events. 3. Context-dependent scenarios: Evidence often links to extreme circumstances like starvation, inter-group violence, or survival, not routine diet. 4. Taphonomic constraints: Fragmentation, small samples, missing data, and incomplete excavations limit behaviour inference. 5. Behavioural ecology: Neandertals were efficient large-game hunters, making reliance on human flesh unlikely and unnecessary. Sensational claims depict Neandertals as cannibalistic, distorting our view of an intelligent, resilient hominin. Such misinterpretations fuel pseudo-science and obscure the nuance needed to understand rare, context-specific behaviour. A cautious, evidence-based approach offers a fairer, more accurate view and avoids overgeneralisation. #Neandertals #Cannibalism #Paleoanthropology #HumanOrigins

https://www.iflscience.com/45000-years-ago-these-neanderthals-cannibalized-women-and-children-from-a-rival-group-81651?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub

Posted into CROSSFIRE @crossfire-HariTulsidas

Pollen clumps associated with the skeleton of the Shanidar 4 Neanderthal were interpreted by the excavator as evidence for a purposeful burial with flowers.
-- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440323001024

#archeology #neandertals