Nicholas Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 A fossil discovery bears marks of butchering similar to those made when cutting up a deer Find the article HERE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 I hate that they never show pictures. I want to see it for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 If the jawbone did indeed have the flesh cut off it, and we assume that the purpose was to consume it, it is still a stretch to conclude that it was modern humans that did so; much more so that the practice was wide spread and led to the Neanderthal's extinction. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashcraft Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Having butchered dozens of deer sized animals, I would add that I have never left cut marks on a lower jaw. There is no meat, and contrary to what the article said, removing the tongue would probably be done by hacking the lower jaw off with an ax, or by cutting through the cheek to the joint, which also wouldn't leave cut marks on the jaw. I would say ceremonial butcher, starvation situation, or somthing similar. Far cry from a normal food source. Also, concluding that it was done by modern humans is a seroious stretch. as reported,(and that may be the problem, as many reporters don't understand what they write about), I would say bad science. Brent Ashcraft ashcraft, brent allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Maybe yes, maybe no....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted May 17, 2009 Author Share Posted May 17, 2009 I agree I've had my nose buried in Anthropological texts for a few years now and this seems like a taboo situational case by one small fraction of humans and it is a very huge leap to try to prove causation by this one find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommabetts Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I think there should be more research into something like that before jumping to such a conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trilo-biker Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 wait if someone was needed to exime this evidecn would they have a paleontologist to do it or a archeologist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 ... Also, concluding that it was done by modern humans is a seroious stretch. as reported,(and that may be the problem, as many reporters don't understand what they write about), I would say bad science.Brent Ashcraft I agree. However, Fernando Rozzi accomplished his objective...MEDIA - PRESS...(but at what expense?) The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 wait if someone was needed to exime this evidecn would they have a paleontologist to do it or a archeologist CSI-Paleo "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 wait if someone was needed to exime this evidecn would they have a paleontologist to do it or a archeologist Actually Anthropological sciences is the best fit for determining these issues, there are several branches which specifically deal with fossils of humans, human like species and primates. The profession is even divided further into specifics that deal just with Neanderthal which would be optimum for this study. All fossils of humans and their ancestors are dealt specifically by Anthropologists, most of which also have a paleontology back ground. One must remember that it is the Anthropologist which has done the most work on such finds like the hobbits, Lucy, Ida and and most other fossils of this nature. I for one think this was a fault of media rather than any expert, it may have been a theory or one select case and leaked out only to have the media grab it up and run with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitviper Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Not knowing much about primitive man.... is it not possible another Neanderthal done it?? I think cannibalism is as old as man himself, but I'd hesitate to confidently draw any real conculsions based on this evidence. "Nothing happens in contradiction to nature, only to what we know of it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now