CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Hmm  several thngs have been brought to my attention, which have a direct bearing upon my sullied honor.

A) I would be gauging you against someone in the realm of Albert Einstein
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Against or in the same realm?
*********************************************************************************************

B) it was posted -->

If it is too late to recall your seconds, I would need to insist on bringing my own weapon.  You would need to clarify the type of sabre you would be using, heavy calvary or the lighter dueling/fencing blades.  My own preference would be the Italian (naturally) blades of Pecoraro, or even Radaelli, while others might prefer the French blades of Boutet or Coullier.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hm on second thought, with your apparant knowledge on the subject,  indicating possibly a passing skill, forget it, settle for coffee/ beer  like Obuma  did.
*****************************************************************************************************

Truckin butch  you posted -->

 As the challenged party you would , of course , have the choice of weapons and terms of engagement .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A) Keep yer cottin pickn nose out of this, you trying to get me hurt?
******************************************************************************************************

ORO  posted -->

To Don Jose's statement, I stand ready and willing amigo, but am very much not the expert with sabres - however I do bleed freely and can scream with the best of them so ought to make quite a show of it!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A)  Quit scaring me  ya  sh-------------- cowboy
******************************************************************************************************

El  Cottin pickin cactus hopper posted -->

As the party who has been challanged, I would have to insist that Don Jose enter the field of battle first, and I would follow.......shortly
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A)  ONLY if I am allowed a  boyancy vest.


on second and third thought,  lets  see who collapses first  from Oroo's  camp coffee..

 ah heck Joe. peerless started it all, not we uns,  so lets tar and feather 'him'. Maybe a bit of long pig, or OR's  X favorite sheep?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Well what happened to Cptbil? I have not heard from him in a long time.

[to see whom can keep it down the longest!]

HOLA my duelling amigos,

This little exercise in combative<ness?> brings up yet another question I have no answer to, I will try to be brief (for once).

Crogmagnons were very likely aggressive warlike people rather like us, <excepting a few peace lovers like me of course> but Neanderthals for all their close-combat big game hunting may not have been so quick to kill other humans.  Does anyone know of any study done on Neanderthal conflict with other humans?  I know that a popular theory holds Neanderhtals and Cromagnons were in conflict but who was the aggressor?  Did one Neanderthal tribe make war on another tribe of Neanderthals?  Thank you in advance,

One other thing, Don Jose de la Mancha wrote

lets  see who collapses first  from Oroo's  camp coffee..

That might take some time, might I suggest an alternate test result, that is to see whom can keep it down the longest!      Served with a cold plate of mutton stew, extra greasy, peppered with whatever fell into the pot! (Which may or may not include a few flying critters, a bit of dirt, some ash, etc really "spices" it up!)    Mmm-mmm!!! <Sheesh getting hungry now!>
Oroblanco

  Hot coffee anyone? 

Roy,

I have not seen much written evidence of combat between the two races.  My guess would be that the Neanderthal avoided confrontations with the Cro Magnon, as they would be at a distinct disadvantage in any fight.

Take care,

Joe

[they would be at a distinct disadvantage in any fight.]

Cactusjumper wrote

My guess would be that the Neanderthal avoided confrontations with the Cro Magnon, as they would be at a distinct disadvantage in any fight.

Hmm - but would they?  Neanderthals are thought to have been at least twice as strong as Cromagnons, in a close-combat this would appear to be quite an advantage.
Oroblanco

[would they?]

Hmm - but would they?  Neanderthals are thought to have been at least twice as strong as Cromagnons, in a close-combat this would appear to be quite an advantage.
Oroblanco

Roy,

I learned early on that just because someone was bigger or stronger made no difference.
I could take on a bigger opponent and win pretty easily if I stayed out of reach and used the weapons that were within reach.
Many times the weapons made all the difference, and that may have been the contributing factor when rethinking the demise of the Neanderthal.

A bigger opponent may be a large portion of bluff.
Whereas a smaller one doesn't have the luxury of bluff.
many of my larger opponents tried the bluff measure, finding I have no time for it.
I was more of a get with it and get it over with guy.
A Cromagnon may have had to react quickly and decisively to be the victor in that kind of encounter.

There seems to be very little evidence to show that these species were violent toward each other generally. It could be possible that something like the flu virus erradicated the Neaderthal or an ancient form of something like AIDS.
Look at some of the death tolls in recent history for the flu virus, and if they existed in relatively small numbers this could have lead to a fast demise. 
And of course there are a million other reasons

 

Roy,

Gary and Thom have made some telling points here.

Bringing the proper weapon to a fight is of paramount importance.  The Cro-Magnon would have brought the throwing spear with each man probably carrying at least two, I should think.  They would have joined the battle at a distance of yards.  On the other hand, the Neanderthal would have carried the heavy thrusting spear and would have closed with the enemy at a matter of feet and.....inches.

Prior to the invention of shields, the throwing spear was the ultimate hand held weapon for early man.  It would have given Cro-Magnon a decided and overwhelming advantage over the thrusting spear of the Neanderthal.  In almost every case involving conflict, speed equals power and often exceeds it.

Assuming that the two peoples were equal in intelligence, which is not a given, the Cro-Magnon had superior weapons and speed.  History tells us what the outcome will usually be.  We need look no farther than David and Goliath, but historical references abound.  In modern times, we could look at the German Blitzkrieg.   On a smaller scale, one might apply "Lightning War" to what would happen to a battle between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal.

Even if the Cro-Magnon were to not throw their spears, and used them in the same manner as the Neanderthal, agility and speed would have probably given them the upper hand.  An excellent example of this theory would be Muhammad Ali versus Sonny Liston.  Kind of says it all.

All of the above is just my personal opinion, so I could be miles off base.

Take care,

Joe

HOLA amigos,

Joe, Thom and Peerless thank you for the thoughtful and insightful replies.  About the only thing I would point out is that the Neanderthals would likely have been a tad shorter in stature than Cromagnons, so the David vs Goliath could be seen the other way.   ;D 

Just an observation here, which may or may not have any bearing on our subject but concerns the throwing spears.  In Sallust's work the Jugurthine Wars, he mentions some combat which took place between some Roman legionaries and a force of Gaetulians, who had Ethiopian allies.  The Ethiopians were armed with throwing spears and wore leather cloaks for protection rather than a shield.  Sallust reported that the Ethiopians were nearly helpless in the battle, for the moment they threw their spears, they were then un-armed and had only their cloaks to protect them from the advancing legionaries.  As you know, Roman legionaries used a short stabbing sword as a favorite weapon, so there is a "simile" in that we have an example of one force armed with throwing spears facing an enemy using a shorter stabbing weapon - and the results were that the legionaries won very easily.  So in our hypothetical combat between spear-throwing Cromagnons and stabbing spear Neanderthals, the outcome may not have been quite so cut and dried.

Oroblanco

HI:  I am going to throw in an 'extremely wild card' here for fun, Cro Mag's origin. 

It has been stated that we do not have a common DNA factor with the CRO gals  / guys, while we do have it with almost all of the other species on earth, even Oro's type,  the Neanderthals  -   did you see that head of hair at the wedding?

K, can it be that they are descendants from a stranded  OVI crew from the distant past,  possibly Nemesis, hence with incompatible factors  prohibiting  passage, a form of sterility?   And that perhaps they eventually became the founders of Atlantis???

Get to work my friends.

Don Jose de La Mancha   (Yerma, El Dorado, formerly of Atlantis / Azatlan)

[shields]

Roy,
 
I believe you are stretching a bit here.  Trying to compare Roman legionnaires using short swords and shields (scutums), not to mention wearing armor, against Ethiopian native foot soldiers using throwing spears and wearing leather armor is a far cry from any confrontations between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal.

Historically, troops who fought with throwing spears were prone to carry two, or more, spears into battle.  Since there is no contemporaneous history of Cro-Magnon versus Neanderthal battles, we can only go by the model that later written history provides us, and assume that the Cro-Magnon were able to figure it out for themselves.   
 
As for Neanderthal being a "tad shorter" than Cro-Magnon, that has been shown to be untrue.  Both were around the same height with Neanderthal being slightly taller in some cases.

I could, of course, be wrong.

Take care,

Joe

 

[the]

HOLA amigos,

Don Jose' de la Mancha wrote

It has been stated that we do not have a common DNA factor with the CRO gals / guys, while we do have it with almost all of the other species on earth, even Oro's type, the Neanderthals - did you see that head of hair at the wedding?

K, can it be that they are descendants from a stranded OVI crew from the distant past, possibly Nemesis, hence with incompatible factors prohibiting passage, a form of sterility? And that perhaps they eventually became the founders of Atlantis???

Don't you mean Neanderthals?    As I understand it, most anthropologists hold that Cromagnons are our direct ancestors, virtually indistinguishable from modern humans.  And you say my coffee may be a tad strong?  

Could it be that the original Cromagnons were stranded crew from some otherworldly craft that had crashed, yes it is possible.  It would explain a few things, such as our extraordinary weakness compared with all other animals of the planet, as well as our un-natural natural "body" clock which, when allowed to operate without any external cues (like sun, clocks etc) goes to a natural 25 hour day, which Earth has never had.  

Could these people then have been the founders of Atlantis?  It is possible but very unlikely, due to timeline problems.  The first Cromagnons appear on Earth perhaps 120,000 years ago, but Atlantis would have been around 11,500 years ago.  While we could speculate that Atlantis had been around for 110,000 years by the time of its destruction, there is nothing to support that idea - in fact if we go by our sources, Atlantis as a civilization had only been in existence for two or three generations, and most allow 33 years for a generation so less than a century.  I think we can rule out any surviving crewmembers of an alien crash as founders of Atlantis, but perhaps their descendants?  Even so, these proposed descendants seem to have taken an extraordinarily long time to again become "civilized".  Been reading Madame Blavatsky lately amigo?  

Cactusjumping Joe wrote

As for Neanderthal being a "tad shorter" than Cro-Magnon, that has been shown to be untrue. Both were around the same height with Neanderthal being slightly taller in some cases.

Can you mention a source or two that supports this contention?  My sources state Cromagnons averaged 174 to 178 centimetres in height at their peak, around 30,000 years ago, which coincides with their coexistence with Neanderthals, whose average height for males was 166 cm. <Males being taller than the females>

Cactusjumper also wrote

I believe you are stretching a bit here. Trying to compare Roman legionnaires using short swords and shields (scutums), not to mention wearing armor, against Ethiopian native foot soldiers using throwing spears and wearing leather armor is a far cry from any confrontations between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal.

Historically, troops who fought with throwing spears were prone to carry two, or more, spears into battle. Since there is no contemporaneous history of Cro-Magnon versus Neanderthal battles, we can only go by the model that later written history provides us, and assume that the Cro-Magnon were able to figure it out for themselves.

 I do not think I was "stretching" it much, for the Roman armor and shields were not the major factor in the outcome <at least according to Sallust, I was not there>- the fact that a force armed with throwing spears is then instantly unarmed would mean that if they should miss the Neanderthal, the Neanderthal could then charge in for the kill.  It is assumption to say that all Cromagnon hunters would have been carrying two or more spears, we really don't know - it could have been one or it could have been a dozen.  Even if the Cromagnon kept an extra spear in hand, he would then be on "even" footing for a stabbing fight, against an opponent with twice his body strength.  <Other examples come to mind as well, such as the Trojan war {such as Achilles fight with Hector}or later Roman conflicts after their adoption of the throwing spear, but the thrown spears tended not to be the decisive weapon of the battles.>
Oroblanco

[On average, the height of Neanderthals was comparable to contemporaneous Homo sapiens]

Roy,

At this time, I believe the jury is still out, but you can find my side of the debate in many places:


[Neanderthal cranial capacity is often thought to have been as large or larger than modern humans, indicating that their brain size may have been the same or greater; however, a 1993 analysis of 118 hominid crania concluded that the cranial capacity of H.s. Neandertal averaged 1,412 cc (86 cu in) while that of fossil modern H.s. Sapiens averaged 1,487 cc (91 cu in).[6] On average, the height of Neanderthals was comparable to contemporaneous Homo sapiens. Neanderthal males stood about 165–168 cm (65–66 in) and were heavily built with robust bone structure. They were much stronger, having particularly strong arms and hands.[7] Females stood about 152–156 cm (60–61 in).[8] They were almost exclusively carnivorous[9] and apex predators.[10]]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

[Body size, expressed as height or stature, is an important determinant of many other biological variables. Thus, it is surprising that many textbooks portray a wrong picture of Neanderthal height as being “very short” or “just over 5 feet”. Based on 45 long bones from maximally 14 males and 7 females, Neanderthals’ height averages between 164 and 168 (males) resp. 152 to 156 cm (females). This height is indeed 12-14 cm lower than the height of post-WWII Europeans, but compared to Europeans some 20,000 or 100 years ago, it is practically identical or even slightly higher.]  
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wo...-as-short-as-you-thought-they-were/

On the other side (your's) of the debate is the fairly convincing conclusions drawn in Anna Meyer's book, "Hunting the Double Helix:  How DNA is solving puzzles of the past".

On page 26, she starts explaining the DNA research that has been done in trying to find the answer to the Neanderthal debate.  She clearly explains the steps that were taken, and the inescapable results that were forthcoming.  To make a long story short:  "Neanderthals are not human ancestors".

My personal (unqualified) opinion, is that future research may change that conclusion.  I believe the DNA research was done in 1997.  The primary reason for any lingering doubts is the dearth of Neanderthal DNA available today.  That scarcity is slowly getting better each year.  Who knows what will eventually be found.

Finding where I first read this theory may not be that difficult, and I will look for my original source if you like.  Suffice it to say, there is evidence to support the information (pro and con) supplied above.  Like all things, it is very slow in being accepted by the old guard.

The lack of physical evidence (numbers) makes conclusions about the Neanderthal nebulous at best.  Time should paint a clearer picture.  At this point in time, I believe that neither of us are right or wrong.

Take care,

Joe

[very]

HOLA amigos,
Cactusjumper wrote

At this point in time, I believe that neither of us are right or wrong.

I agree 100% - after all we are working with theories, based on very fractional bits of evidence.  It is possible that we can not know the whole truth without a time machine.
Oroblanco

Roy,

Right now, you are on the accepted side of the question.  The DNA evidence is pretty overwhelming and that may very well never change.

Both sides of the debate entered their research with preconceived conclusions.  That is fairly well documented and may have tainted the research, as well as the evidence.

Take care,

Joe

[Neanderthals Were Alive 2,000 Years Later Than Previously Recorded]

I see what you are saying, and agree as well.  While I did use the DNA to support the no-crossbreeding theory, it is highly debatable just how much DNA would be still "in the mix" after an absence of say 10,000 years.  <No new Neanderthal DNA added after the last one died.>  Actually your arguments, plus the known examples of "absorption" of different races by surrounding <larger> populations tend to throw the whole DNA argument into doubt.

I wonder when Neanderthals truly "went extinct" too, since really we don't have a lot of their remains anywhere. 

Did Neanderthals Last Longer?
Study: Neanderthals Were Alive 2,000 Years Later Than Previously Recorded
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/13/tech/main2007099.shtml
Roy

Roy,

There is a very fine book written by Ian Tattersall on this very subject.  Fittingly it is titled,
"The Last Neanderthal".  The final chapter (10) and last page of the book (203) shows a picture of the cave containing the latest known Neanderthal presence.  It is in southern Spain.

Tattersall believes the Neanderthal were the victims of the first occurrence of genocide.

Take care,

Joe

HOLA amigos,
This got to be a pretty long-winded reply so I must beg your indulgence.

Thank you for the book suggestion Joe, I think I may have seen that very title in our local library the last time I was in there.  On the face of his theory of genocide though, I have reservations.  For one, that would be to imply some kind of organized campaign against the Neanderthals, among peoples who were likely not that organized.  As I understand it, the highest level of organization at the time was tribal.  I know, a tribe can launch a campaign of genocide almost like modern mechanized states (I am reminded of the Cherokees war on the Yuchis and also Xualas) so it is not entirely far-fetched.  Could men be so shallow as to make a war of extermination against another people who looked different?  Unfortunately we know the answer to that.

Then there is the problem of population density, one theory for the "cassus belli" against the Neanderthals was that the amount of available game was crashing disastrously.  This would seem a logical reasoning, except that southern Spain/Gibraltar area at the time was literally teeming with game of all sorts, as one anthropologist put it a sort of "Serengeti in Europe".  So extreme pressures on the game population apparently won't "float".  

One more thing that doesn't seem to fit this idea (for me) is that if there truly some kind of war of extermination against the Neanderthals, it must not have been too successful since the Neanderthals seem to have continued to exist alongside Cromagnons for (possibly) several thousand years!  

If it sounds as if I am swinging over to your side of the argument, that is true.  The DNA study seemed to have "sealed" the case to me, for even the example of the half-Neanderthal child remains dates to a period several thousand years after the Neanderthals are thought to have disappeared.  The answer may be much more complex - for doubtless there was warfare between the two species, and equally doubtless there were peaceful interactions between them.  Something as innocuous as a childhood disease, perhaps brought out of Africa (or China, depending on which origination theory we go by) by the homo sapiens-sapiens was introduced to the Neanderthals who may have had little or no resistance to it.  We have examples of this in "modern" history.

I have one more problem with the genocide theory, that of mythology.  I am convinced that nearly all ancient myths are allegorized "oral histories" of real events.  As we have discussed before with the flood for example, some kind of cataclysmic event occurs which is remembered through mythology.  A war of extermination against another species of humans, people with extraordinary strength, I would expect this to be recorded in some kind of ancient myth.  I know there are the "war in heaven/between the gods" myths, but these seem to originate in the Chalcolithic period not 30,000 years ago.  <The war between the gods of Olympus against the Titans might appear to be a possible mythical rendition of a war against the Neanderthals, but apparently the Titans were still around circa 900 BC, at that time a vassal state of Tyre, so unless we want to project Neanderthals into the Iron age this one won't do.>  I do not know of a myth that is old enough and will "fit" the idea of a deliberate genocide.

Perhaps I will change my mind after reading his book, I am making presumptions on the basis of speculation viz-> genocide theory.

On the DNA question, this route may not do at all to determine if we are descended from Neanderthals.  As they had at least 98% similar DNA to ours, we do have common ancestors (in theory at least) and they went extinct a very long time ago - how could we hope to find a trace linkage?  For example in the draft horse world, a number of people are cross-breeding Friesian horses with American Percherons, as the Friesians are extremely expensive and difficult to get registered, then the offspring are back-crossed to full blooded Friesians and so on with the percentage of Friesian blood goes 50%, 75%, 87.5%, and on with the Percheron percentage decreasing with each succeeding generation.  Most will allow that one <human> generation is roughly 33 years, and three generations to a century, then we have perhaps 30,000 years - or 900 generations.  With 900 generations and no new Neanderthal DNA added to the population, just how much should we expect to find today?  Considering that they were 98% identical when they co-existed, using Mendel's laws of genetic inheritance - over that 900 generations - sheesh!  Plus as you pointed out, they were testing Europeans only, which was the obvious choice but we know that Neanderthals had expanded into Asia so probably Asians ought to be likewise tested.  

Sorry for the long-winded post, hope I have not bored you to tears yet!  
Roy ~ Oroblanco

good afternoon:  A side thingie.  It was deduced that the early Scandinavian settlements in North America failed because  faulty diets decreased the pelvic dimensions of the Women causing horrible birth problems in trying to pass the heads of the newly being born, eventually killing so many with the complications that the settlements were abandoned.

Could there be a similar problem with  Cro Mag heads?

Don Jose de  La Mancha

Don Jose,

I have read a number of interesting stories theorizing on what caused the Viking Settlements in Iceland/Greenland to suddenly disappear.  Your birthing story seems to be the most unlikely one yet.

The Vikings were, primarily, farmers.  It is doubtful that their diet changed much at all.  It would have remained what they hunted, grew and fished.  

There were a number of factors that probably caused their demise in North America.  For a bit of insight into those things, I would suggest you read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond, paying special attention to page 261.

Take care,

Joe

[anatomically modern humans]

Don Jose de la Mancha wrote

A side thingie.  It was deduced that the early Scandinavian settlements in North America failed because  faulty diets decreased the pelvic dimensions of the Women causing horrible birth problems in trying to pass the heads of the newly being born, eventually killing so many with the complications that the settlements were abandoned.

Could there be a similar problem with  Cro Mag heads?

Hmm this is the second time you have referred to Cro Magnon man, where it appears that you might have meant to say Neanderthals?  As I understand it, Cro Magnon or Cromagnon man is basically the same as us, that is it is our direct ancestors, with little anatomical differences between them and us.  Here is an extract

The term Cro-Magnon (pronounced /kroʊˈmæɡnən/, French [kʀomaɲɔ̃]) refers to one of the main types of anatomically modern humans of the European Upper Paleolithic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

Now I am not trying to be picky with you amigo, just want to understand which you are referring to - is it a case of using the term Cro Magnon when you meant Neanderthals, or do you hold that Cro-Magnons have also gone extinct?  As you can tell, I am tired and easily confused tonight!
 
The head size-birth problem theory (connected to diet) is one I am not familiar with.  The mystery of what happened to the Greenland and Vinland colonies though is very interesting to me, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this a bit?  Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

Don Jose,

Assuming there was something lacking in the diets of those first Scandinavians which caused a decrease in pelvic dimension's, why did any race survive?  I would imagine everyone ate pretty much the same thing in that environment and in that era.

Take care,

Joe

Roy,

The Vikings arrived in Greenland from Iceland around 980 A.D.  At that time, the country was uninhabited.  They were, "primarily farmers and traders".  By 1,000 A.D. There were around 5,000 Vikings living in small farming communities.

Around 1200 A.D. The Inuit people migrated into Greenland.  One of the suspected reasons for the demise of the Vikings, was the fact that they killed the first native people they saw.  Relations were antagonistic from that point forward.  This is considered, by many, to be primary cause for the Vikings disappearance.

Other reasons include:  [Loss of support from “home” or trade partners,  Environmental Degradation, Climate change and faulty social values.]  All of these factors contributed to the failure of the settlements.

As for a change in diet......that is a fact. In addition to the problems listed above, "Diamond asserts that the Greenland Norse developed some sort of taboo against eating fish, suicidal in hindsight."  There are other factors which point to a change in diet, including thinner soils and shorter growing seasons of Greenland.  "Many Viking bones indicate that near the demise of the population, the Greenlanders were severely malnourished amidst abundant un-utilized food sources."

The above information comes from a number of sources including Jared Diamond's book, "Collapse".

Take care,

Joe

HOLA amigos,

Cactusjumper wrote

As for a change in diet......that is a fact. In addition to the problems listed above, "Diamond asserts that the Greenland Norse developed some sort of taboo against eating fish, suicidal in hindsight." There are other factors which point to a change in diet, including thinner soils and shorter growing seasons of Greenland. "Many Viking bones indicate that near the demise of the population, the Greenlanders were severely malnourished amidst abundant un-utilized food sources."

I did know about the climate change and resulting diet problems, but - how does this cause pelvic problems / birthing trouble due to head size?  Is there evidence that the women born in Greenland did not develop properly, or that there were many miscarriages?  The last <newest> remains found in Greenland did show dietary problems, but in this we may be getting a "skewed" look at the problem since most or all appear to have been the elderly, sick and/or very young - as if the mature healthier adults vanished.  There is a record of Skraelling <Eskimo> attacks on the east coast colonies, so the hostile relations were definitely a problem too.  I know there was yet another factor which some  have proposed as an explanation for the sudden disappearance, that Christianity had only recently arrived in Greenland (and Vinland) and that a part of the Norse living there refused to convert, choosing instead to remain in the old faith and sought new lands elsewhere. 

Sorry for digressing off-topic, this particular mystery (like the disappearance of the Roanoke colony) fhas fascinated me for some time.  It may even explain why Norse artifacts and inscriptions are found so far from the "known" areas where it is believed they had either colonies or at least visited.  The west Greenland colonies especially seem to have just suddenly been de-populated, and if the last survivors had been killed by enemies their remains would not have been buried so ought to have been found; likewise if the last survivors had died from malnutrition - who or whom buried them?  No remains were found (as far as I was able to determine) un-buried, so someone had taken the trouble to do that.  Of course there are even more fantastic theories too such as UFO mass abduction, which cannot be disproven since we have so little evidence to work with.  Perhaps one answer may lie in the fact that no Viking boats were found?   

Thank you for the interesting reply amigo!
Roy ~ Oroblanco

Roy,

It is a medical fact that women who suffer from chronic malnutrition have an increased risk of obstructed labor because of the size of the baby's head in proportion to the reduced size of their birth canal.  There are, of course, other problems that accompany malnutrition in pregnant women, such as higher risk of infection.....etc.

Here are a few links to confuse the issue of Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon even more:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070115215252.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061103083616.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060824222042.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185434.htm

Take care,

Joe

[Thank you]

Greetings Joe (and HOLA amigos),
Thank you for the links amigo, this is definitely NOT a cut-n-dry subject! 

Well that does make sense (birth problems due to malnutrition of the mother) yet if this could lead to a total collapse of a colony, then wouldn't it also logically have led to huge population collapses in places like Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ethiopia, even India and China (in the past) have had periods of severe famines but we have not seen anything quite like the Greenland cases.  Probably I should address the Greenland colonies as two cases, for the western colonies vanished before the eastern.  It puzzles me why the eastern colonies didn't make some effort to stay in contact/communication with the western colonies - rather they appear not to even have noticed that no one came from the west anymore.
Roy ~ Oroblanco 
 

Roy,

"Well that does make sense (birth problems due to malnutrition of the mother) yet if this could lead to a total collapse of a colony, then wouldn't it also logically have led to huge population collapses in places like Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ethiopia, even India and China (in the past) have had periods of severe famines but we have not seen anything quite like the Greenland cases."

I would guess that the overall population had something to do with the survival of the countries you mentioned.  The Vikings lived on small subsistence farms and were relatively small in numbers.  Whittle the numbers down from millions to thousands, and each of those peoples could have vanished.

The Vikings had lost contact with the old country, and had antagonized/killed the Inuit  ......their only possible source for help.  I don't find it at all surprising that they died out.  The fact that they, for some reason, decided to stop eating the most plentiful food source  only hastened their demise.

Take care,

Joe

Roy,

It's hard to believe that after this many years of searching the cave on Flores Island, no other skulls have been found.  That makes me wonder if LB1 wasn't just a sick and deformed member of a clan who abandoned her in the cave.  I can see where tribe members might have continued to bring her food and water, but may not have wanted her in camp.  Pretty much how many modern folks take care of elderly family members.

Where are the other (complete) skulls?  This species did not live over vast areas, but were concentrated on a small island.  More specifically, it is believed this cave was a long term abode.  There is a Pygmy tribe that lives close to this cave......today.  Was LB1 from that line?

Take care,

Joe

[Where are the other (complete) skulls?]

HOLA mi amigo Joe (and everyone),

Cactusjumper wrote

It's hard to believe that after this many years of searching the cave on Flores Island, no other skulls have been found.  <snip> Where are the other (complete) skulls?

It may seem as if they have had plenty of time to have fully searched the cave in questiono on Flores, but as I understand it, in fact they have had relatively very little access to the cave and it is CLOSED to everyone today.   Human remains are difficult to find even in places where they ought to be found by the thousands (as in the necropolis of ancient Alexandria in Egypt) apparently humans do not persist well in the environment as corpses, especially in wet climates.   I will place a bet, a dollar to a donut, that other "Hobbit" remains will be found, on other islands in the vicinity within a few years.  The search team did find another site some 40 kilometers away which has turned up a good number of artifacts,
<BBC article online>  
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4339740.stm

the odd thing is the AGE of the new site which is up to 850,000 years old, or at least 700,000 years older than the original find.  The new site (Mata menge) has stone tools which are small and well crafted, just like those of Liang Bua, so it looks promising. Here is an extract

""If we've got hominids on Flores, we've almost certainly got them on Timor, because there are reports of Stegodon fossils associated with stone tools there," he explained.
"Timor, probably Sulawesi, maybe Sumbawa - we don't know. If hominids got to any of these other islands they would have evolved into unique endemic species.

"So we've got the prospect of having other new species of human on various parts of island South-East Asia. Some of them could be really weird, having adapted to specific island environments."
It is still not known how hominids travelled by sea between these islands. Building watercraft may have been a skill too far for them. "
end extract
I think it is modern bias to presume that building watercraft would be too difficult for them.  If ants, with brains the size of a grain of sand, can make rafts out of leaf cuttings and thus make river crossings, surely a humanoid with a brain far larger and much more tool making ability, could notice that wood floats.

The fact that there are modern pygmies living nearby does not necessarily show any ancestral lineage to the Hobbits, for all modern pygmies have fully modern brains with modern wrist and ankle structures, which Homo Floresiensis did not.  There are more physical differences than just stature involved, which point to Floresiensis being a separate species and probably a descendant of a very ancient type of man.  (Habilis)  In fact it is perfectly logical to find modern pygmies living in the same environment that supported ancient pygmies, as the local habitat obviously favors pygmy type humans.  It may even cause them, perhaps some deficiency in the minerals obtainable from local foods and waters (zinc comes to mind and has a definite effect on stature, though I don't know if that would lead to a genetic change).  

This brings up a major puzzle (for me) for some anthropologists are saying that the Hobbits arrived on Flores already small, which is supported by a LACK of evidence of larger sized humans as their ancestors, (this could change tomorrow) and I have to wonder how these pint-sized humans managed to cross open seas?  This is not to say that pygmies could not build rafts, but it seems to me, the tasks involved would be much more difficult for small people.  We are talking about people three feet tall here, weighing less than 100 pounds - the idea of people this size hauling huge logs to build a raft.....!!!!!  

If you can allow me a few days, I may be able to enlarge on this problem of the scarcity of Hobbit skulls.  Been getting pretty busy around here lately and our new pups, like all Huskies, need no housebreaking (they seem to have this knowledge from birth) they are also still not able to "hold it" all night - needing to be let out every few hours to take care of business; this has resulted in our getting less sleep the last couple of weeks but it is worth it.  Let me get back to you on this one.  
Roy ~ Oroblanco