Innate fear of Neanderthals?, Just an idea, now have at it Options

[Drew]

I don't subscribe to the following, but I thought since we are talking about Neanderthals and Genetics I would at least mention it.

I have read that Humans have an innate fear of snakes, and that it goes back to the days when we were huddled in trees and caves and a snake would come along and eat us. Is it possible, that people of certain lineage, a lineage in which their ancestors were hounded by Neanderthals, developed an innate fear of large hairy bipeds? Taking this possibility another step, could it be possible, that darkness, isolation, or other conditions, trigger a response in those people making them think they are being stalked by a Large Hairy Biped? Just an idea, I came up with it when I was considering there are 300,000,000 people in America, and if only 1/100th of a percent, or .0001 of that population had this trait, then there would be 30,000 people who had a propensity to see BF, if you say only 1/2 of the .0001 of the population actually exhibits this trait, (in the other half it's regressive) then still 15,000 people out there who if the conditions were right, see a dark, hairy biped.

Just an idea, i'm not promoting it or anything. Have at it.

This post has been edited by Drew: Jan 19 2007, 06:57 AM

[DanChamberlain]

Neanderthals, while possibly hairy enough and ugly enough, weren't large enough.

Dan

[Drew]

Neanderthals, while possibly hairy enough and ugly enough, weren't large enough.

Dan

Right, but, I was thinking that with embellishment, and teaching, the fear of them may have been exagerated. i.e. Great Whites get 36 feet long, Dragons breath fire, etc... Things we fear we tend to make bigger and badder with retelling. A hunting party that was attacked by them might say that they were huge, in order to make their fleeing seem more reasonable.

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

I don't subscribe to the following, but I thought since we are talking about Neanderthals and Genetics I would at least mention it.

I have read that Humans have an innate fear of snakes, and that it goes back to the days when we were huddled in trees and caves and a snake would come along and eat us. Is it possible, that people of certain lineage, a lineage in which their ancestors were hounded by Neanderthals, developed an innate fear of large hairy bipeds?

This is only half true. The study (cook 1991) that monkeys have an innate fear of snakes was set off by social stimulus. An isolated monkey shown an image of a snake would not react with fear, but when shown other monkeys reacting in fear it showed fear as well.
This did not happen to monkeys shown a flower followed by scared monkeys.
So while the fear was innate it wasn't purely instinctual.

I should also be noted that people don't show fear while watching the Patterson Grimlin film or when viewing a nature documentry on hominids. People with say, a phobia of snakes, would be creeped out.

Again I'm gonna have to bring up that humans are terrified while encountering any large, predatory animal, which must be even more so when they don't believe of know that a Sasquatch exists.

[Drew]

This is only half true. The study (cook 1991) that monkeys have an innate fear of snakes was set off by social stimulus. An isolated monkey shown an image of a snake would not react with fear, but when shown other monkeys reacting in fear it showed fear as well.
This did not happen to monkeys shown a flower followed by scared monkeys.
So while the fear was innate it wasn't purely instinctual.

I should also be noted that people don't show fear while watching the Patterson Grimlin film or when viewing a nature documentry on hominids. People with say, a phobia of snakes, would be creeped out.

Again I'm gonna have to bring up that humans are terrified while encountering any large, predatory animal, which must be even more so when they don't believe of know that a Sasquatch exists.

It may not be a fear of the beast itself, but a fear of the conditions themselves that triggers the sighting. Perhaps when it was dark and rainy, they were taught that this is when the Giant hairy beasts attack us. So when those subject to the instinct are in the woods alone, in the dark, they are predisposed to 'see' a hairy beast lurking in the woods. The idea doesn't hold water, but it is fun to think about.

[dogu4]

The subject of "instinctual behaviors" such as fear of snakes (and other monsters) has recieve a lot of attention with far reaching implications among researchers in the fields studying evolutionary psychology and the findings are slanting towards seeing humansbehaving in surprisingly complex ways which themselves are under the influence of instinctual behaviors that up until recently were thought to be so complex that they must be strictly cultural/learned behaviours. While more than a quick look into the subject, a thorough reading of Steven Pinker's Pulitzer Prize-winning book "the Blank Slate" is loaded with interesting discussion regarding the degree to which animals in general and humans specifically are guided by instinct.

[moregon]

Neanderthals, while possibly hairy enough and ugly enough, weren't large enough.

Dan

In the same respect we're a lot larger now than our ancestors were at that time, so why wouldn't it be possible for Neaderthals to have become larger as well?

[Boomer316]

The skinny on neanderthals (no pun intended)

These heavily built and muscled people had a brain volume of 1200 to 1800 cubic centimetres, equal to and even larger than modern human brains. Neanderthals were much more muscular than are modern humans - bulking about 30 percent more in weight. Both their skull (Harvati, 2003) and body morphology are different to archaic and modern H. sapiens morphology . Their faces showed a particular adaptation, with the midface projecting and ending in large front teeth. The mid-facial projection and large nasal sinuses can be seen in Neanderthal skulls from children e.g. La Quina 18 (from a eight year old) and Teshik Tash 1 (from a nine year old) and Le Moustier, a 15 year old. . Neanderthal skull reconstructions provide further evidence that the creatures were a separate species to modern humans. Distinctive Neanderthal skull features were established in early infancy. Physical features in skull development, such as the Neanderthal's receding chin and low, sloping forehead, were fixed by the age of two years. Their hyoid bones, involved in speech, were basically identical to humans. Neanderthal inner ear morphology is now being studied and differences are being found to the human inner ear They had heavy brow ridges, a low sloping forehead and a very large nose. Their teeth usually showed distinct wear from some type of repeated use . They lacked the projecting chin of modern humans. Their build suggested the possibility of cold adaptations, being very robust or stockily built with the lower legs and forearms short. A similar feature is found in modern-human cold-adapted races, such as Eskimos, and serves to reduce heat loss through the extremities. They must have been very strong and powerfully muscled. Markings on the leg bones show that they squatted habitually.
Strong evidence for the difference between humans and Neanderthals can be found in the morphology of the Neanderthal pelvis, which is different to a human pelvis. There is a different relationship of the pelvis to the hip joints and other features such as the iliac blades (Aiello & Dean, 1990).
A list of distinctive Neanderthal features is as follows:


Large round " apical tufts " to the finer tips;
Robust finger bones;

Enlarged rib cage, with barrel-chested build;
Stout, bowed femoral shaft;
Dorsal sulcus on scapula for more muscle attachments;
Relatively short, bowed scapula;
Long pelvic pubis (superior pubic ramus);
Relatively short tibia and fibula (lower leg);
Low forehead with occipital bun (chignon, occipital torus) & projecting mid-face ;
Lack of chin (mental eminence);
Long clavicle and large shoulder joint;
Large and thick patella;
occipital depression ( suprainiac fossa );
supraorbital torus;
A mastoid crest located behind the external auditory meatus ;
Absence of a canine fossa;
Presence of a retromolar space;
Extinction:

With the arrival in Europe of modern humans, with an advanced and sophisticated technology 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals started to vanish. Around 35,000 years ago temperatures started to decline and the most recent Neanderthal remains are found south in isolated seaside caves in Spain. Some tools are 29,000 years old. Neanderthals were still living in Croatia as recently as 28,000 years ago and in southern Spain only 30,000 years ago (Hall, 1999). The Croatian population had some modern human anatomical characteristics. Neanderthals from France, Spain (Zafarraya), and possibly Italy (Cavallo), fall within the period 32-36,000 B.P. There was not enough time for these late Neanderthals to have evolved into the 31,000-year-old modern humans from England and Germany (Brown, 2001). A fossil of a 24,500-year-old early modern human child unearthed in Portugal shows distinctive Neanderthal characteristics, possibly the result of interbreeding. After that, all record vanish.

Although DNA tests show that modern humans and neanderthals diverged from a common ancestor more than 500,000 years ago and that modern humans do not carry neanderthal genes and so did not interbreed when they encountered each other 50,000 years ago, the discovery of possible hybrids suggests that we still have not fully completed the Neanderthal story.
How an average Neanderthal male (left) compare to a human male. Brain size is in cubic centimeters.


Neanderthal
Human

Height
5-6
5-9

Weight
142
172

Brain
1,200-
1,700
1,300-
1,500

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[LAL]

I have read that Humans have an innate fear of snakes, and that it goes back to the days when we were huddled in trees and caves and a snake would come along and eat us.

Early humans had campsites. Is there any evidence snakes came along and ate us? I assume you meant "recessive", but how do you figure per centages of something that hasn't been identified? (I've never been afraid of snakes, BT. I had pet snakes when I was a little girl. My mother was terrified.)

Anything innate would probably have been present in the common ancestor. I question the whole "racial memory" concept. It was popular in the 70's, but I don't know of anyone coming up with a mechanism for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_memory

This is how our closest (known)relatives react to pythons:

"An excellent example of a respect and intense curiosity of chimpanzees to an animate object is in their reaction to snakes, particularly pythons. Pythons could pose a threat to young chimpanzees, but it is not likely that any snake would take on an adult. However, when a single individual or group of chimpanzees encounters a python (even a small one), the reaction is remarkable. One would expect the chimps to issue alarm calls to warn others and as an expression of their fear, but then to move well out of harms way as soon as possible. Predictably, the chimpanzees do issue a specific vocalization called a snake wraa, but when it is uttered, the group often draws near, to stare at the snake. Some climb above if possible for a better look. Typical facial expressions are those of fear and curiosity. Physical reassurance contact is often made (especially mutual embracing), and eye contact among individuals is frequent. After tens of minutes, members finally begin to disperse. Some individuals however, (Skosha and Apollo, for instance) show exaggerated and prolonged interest. Both call time and again even after the other individuals have moved well away. I have seen both stay and stare and call for as long as 30 minutes.

It is difficult to explain why chimpanzees react to pythons in this way. It appears to be much more than keeping a close eye on a possible threat, as many species do. It also seems a great waste of energy and time. If pythons are dangerous, it would make much more sense to alarm call and move away as quickly as possible."

http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/c.../rain_dance.asp

[Morgoth]

You are totally on to something, Drew.

I am thinking of the "near death" experience, where people see the tunnel and the light and the figure in robes. Then Carl Sagan pointed out that this vision would be identical to the birth experience, and that the brain in near death circumstances may be playing back this memory.

Also, think of Betty and Barney Hill in (I think) 1957 who reported the first Alien Abduction experience: helpless experiments, missing time, hypnosis, etc. Today, this is a huge part of popular culture, with many people claiming these experiences. But the Hills started this phenomena.

So if some kind of ancestral or instinctual experience or memory is possible, then this could explain the psychological manifestation of big hairy monsters as experienced by many people in different areas of the world. This could be the genesis of the human experience of zenophobia and racism that plagues mankind to the present day.

I don't know if Neanderthal is responsible, but there were at least six different hominids extant 300,000 years ago that man was contending with. My guess is that most of these were killed off by us, although there are different theories about that. What instinctual memories would be created by this experience?

So before I get fried to a crisp for this rant, ask your self this: HOW is it that these createres are seen all around the world, and back through time to the Indians and earlier, and there is not ONE of them in a zoo or even a SINGLE bone in a museum.

John Green states the problem pretty clearly, right here...

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/jgreen.html

This post has been edited by Morgoth: Jan 19 2007, 12:48 PM

[Flashman]

Methinks I'll wait to see the box office take of "Neanderthals on a plane" before commenting :biggrin:

[Morgoth]

Ooops, my link above is wrong, I'm looking for that article. It discusses worlwide sightings of different bigfoot, yeti, almasty, yowie, etc. creatures.

[Drew]

Morgoth,
Something like this would also explain the different descriptions and sizes, and builds and colors that each 'sighting' brings forth. If in reality it is not a physical sighting, but a mental projection, of what their brain projects that the being would look like.

It is similar in this regard to sleep paralysis, in which, while dreaming, your brain projects an environment in which you think you are awake, and there may be some being in the room in this projection. The brain takes all of the input from your surroundings before you fall asleep and incorporates it into the projection. The Trigger in this case is Sleep-Onset REM Sleep. The Trigger in a Bigfoot Sighting might be: Dark, Forests, Cliffs, Headlights (Monsters with Torches) etc...

Example: You drink a Coke, set it down on the floor, and fall asleep on the couch, you then have a sleep paralysis experience, in which you believe some dark shadow is trying to get you, and thinking yourself to be awake, you dream that the beast knocks over the Coke while trying to get you. However when you wake up, the coke isn't there, and your wife tells you she picked it up as soon as you laid down. Your brain uses only the sensory input that it has recieved while awake, to project the dreamed environment.

Which, if some innate or instinctive fear is manifesting itself into your mind, your mind would only be able to project whatever your mind percieves BF to be. It's a mess, but think of it like this. If your mind took all of it's available inputs, in this case prehistoric images passed down from ancient generation to generation, and all you have left is fragments of this, when you trigger whatever mental projection, it is going to come out different from the next guy's. The main characteristics would still be there, Hairy, Big, Fast. But everything else would vary. Perhaps the Same is true of Alien Abduction people. They project a skinny big eyed being. Their ancestors were afraid of A skinny big eyed being that visited them, perhaps descendants of Easter Island, Egypt, Maya etc... They didn't have the Neanderthals to worry about, they had alien visitors.

This post has been edited by Drew: Jan 19 2007, 01:44 PM

[LAL]

You are totally on to something, Drew.

I am thinking of the "near death" experience, where people see the tunnel and the light and the figure in robes. Then Carl Sagan pointed out that this vision would be identical to the birth experience, and that the brain in near death circumstances may be playing back this memory.

Also, think of Betty and Barney Hill in (I think) 1957 who reported the first Alien Abduction experience: helpless experiments, missing time, hypnosis, etc. Today, this is a huge part of popular culture, with many people claiming these experiences. But the Hills started this phenomena.

Babies are born with their eyes closed. How would they see a "tunnel", let alone someone in robes? More likely, the phenomenon, when it occurs is migraine-like firings as the nerve cells start to die, oxygen starvation and/or pupil widening.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/near-death-experience.html

Some people see relatives, some see Buddha and some see nothing but black.

Sleep paralysis seems to be the explanation fo "alien abductions". Hill's psychiatrist said it was "a kind of dream". Barney wasn't as convinced as she was.

[JohnWS]

Interesting thread Drew. :icon14:

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

Babies are born with their eyes closed. How would they see a "tunnel", let alone someone in robes? More likely, the phenomenon, when it occurs is migraine-like firings as the nerve cells start to die, oxygen starvation and/or pupil widening.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/near-death-experience.html

Some people see relatives, some see Buddha and some see nothing but black.

Sleep paralysis seems to be the explanation fo "alien abductions". Hill's psychiatrist said it was "a kind of dream". Barney wasn't as convinced as she was.

Strong psychedelic drug intake can also produce affects similar to near death experiences. As for the birthing theory, what about those who were born via C-section?

. If your mind took all of it's available inputs, in this case prehistoric images passed down from ancient generation to generation, and all you have left is fragments of this, when you trigger whatever mental projection, it is going to come out different from the next guy's. The main characteristics would still be there, Hairy, Big, Fast. But everything else would vary. Perhaps the Same is true of Alien Abduction people. They project a skinny big eyed being. Their ancestors were afraid of A skinny big eyed being that visited them, perhaps descendants of Easter Island, Egypt, Maya etc... They didn't have the Neanderthals to worry about, they had alien visitors.

The visual of being abducted by "Grays" is a rather recent phenomena, before the mid 1950's aliens came in all shapes and colors, from hairy man to nordic to mummey like beings (checkout Abducted,Clancy 2005). There is really no evidence to suggest that these images came from any place more mysterious than hollywood

What also need to be understood about "alien abductions" is that they are usually remembered via hypnosis.
These "recovered memories" are also responsible for peopl claiming to have been abducted by Satanic cults and made to eat babies, among other things :new_tiredsmiley: . Memories can be fabricated under certain conditions, and I have yet to read of someone who wakes up thinking "I just got back from the flying saucer", instead they go through hypnotic therapy, say, because of some form of parasomnia.

The Trigger in this case is Sleep-Onset REM Sleep. The Trigger in a Bigfoot Sighting might be: Dark, Forests, Cliffs, Headlights (Monsters with Torches) etc...

I am not aware of any Sasquatch reports in that involved them carrying torches. Also, Sleep-Onset REM sleep is not a "trigger" as much as it is a reaction taking place in an altered state of conciousness. The thing thats remarkable about Sasquatch sightings is the opposite, they rarely happen in such states.

Also, think of Betty and Barney Hill in (I think) 1957 who reported the first Alien Abduction experience: helpless experiments, missing time, hypnosis, etc. Today, this is a huge part of popular culture, with many people claiming these experiences. But the Hills started this phenomena.

Ufologists often compare modern alien abductions to pre-industrial "fairy kidnappings", which also have strong themes of kidnapping and sex. For that matter so do claims of SRA. I don't think that there's enough data here to make any valid conclusion but I do think that everybody is afraid of being helplessly violated.
(It has been suggested that "fairy kidnappings is also related to parasomnia).

So before I get fried to a crisp for this rant, ask your self this: HOW is it that these createres are seen all around the world, and back through time to the Indians and earlier, and there is not ONE of them in a zoo or even a SINGLE bone in a museum.

This is the same piece of rhetoric "skeptics" love to bring up. The truth is is that "these creatures" have not been seen all over the world, many details change and many are probably explainations for other Great Apes. If you except that Gigantiopithecus is a logical theory for the existence of Sasquatch, then you might consider several jaws and hundreds of teeth are nicely located in museums.

[17x7]

The skinny on neanderthals (no pun intended)

These heavily built and muscled people had a brain volume of 1200 to 1800 cubic centimetres, equal to and even larger than modern human brains. Neanderthals were much more muscular than are modern humans - bulking about 30 percent more in weight.

I was watching a documentary on Neanderthals recently that said something that really stuck in my mind. They were talking about the difference in muscle build between modern humans and neanderthals. The speaker (don't remember the guy's name) stated that bone mass and attachment points usually corespond to the amount of muscle mass of the inidividual. He went to say that to put the difference into perspective, Arnold Schwartzenagger's (sp? ) skeletal mass back when he was competing would give him the build of an average female Neander.

Care to arm wrestle the male? :new_weirdsmiley:
17x7

[robo]

The interesting thing is that Neanderthals are extinct, and modern humans are not. Presumably, modern humans exterminated the Neanderthals. There are other possible explanations, but the interbreeding hypothesis doesn't seem to be supported by recent evidence, and frankly, judging by 'modern' modern human behavior, the idea of a Neanderthal genocide carried out by modern humans isn't remotely far-fetched.

While the Neanderthals may have been physically stronger, they may have had inferior weapons, communication skills, or may simply have been less aggressive in nature, resulting in their extinction.

In the end, i think it's more likely that any surviving non-human hominids would have a innate terror of homo sapiens rather than the other way around!

[LAL]

I think the current consensus is both were driven south by advancing ice in Europe, and Homo sapiens, being a little smarter were able to outcompete their stronger cousins.

As for the birthing theory, what about those who were born via C-section?

Under the circumstances, they wouldn't want to open their eyes.

[Former_Northwest...]

The interesting thing is that Neanderthals are extinct, and modern humans are not. Presumably, modern humans exterminated the Neanderthals. There are other possible explanations, but the interbreeding hypothesis doesn't seem to be supported by recent evidence

What recent evidence are you referring to? Do you have a link? This is fascinating!

[robo]

I think the current consensus is both were driven south by advancing ice in Europe, and Homo sapiens, being a little smarter were able to outcompete their stronger cousins.

It's definitely one theory, but it's odd that the Neanderthals appeared to be better adapted to cold than homo sapiens, and they managed to survive for a long time in very harsh conditions. Also, 'outcompeting' can mean a lot of things, some more benign than others.

It sounds similar to what was and still to some extent is the 'consensus' theory that they massive extinction of most of North America's large fauna about 10,000 years ago was due to climate change. The strange thing is that those same animals had survived millions of years of climate changes. What happened to occur about 10,000 years ago, however, was the migration of humans into North America. It's starting to be more and more accepted that people hunted most of the large animals to extinction, although there is still considerable resistance to this explanation of events, which I think stems from a standpoint of regarding the relationship between early humans and their environment as being benign. It's a nice attitude, but when you think about it, it might not be the most rational, assuming that early modern humans had more or less the same tendencies as modern ones (most likely true).


Then again, people much more knowledgeable than me can't agree on this, so i'm certainly not claiming i'm right about this.

What recent evidence are you referring to? Do you have a link? This is fascinating!

Here are a few:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?...al.pbio.0020449

http://www.drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/536110.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3023685.stm


-robo

[Former_Northwest...]

It's definitely one theory, but it's odd that the Neanderthals appeared to be better adapted to cold than homo sapiens, and they managed to survive for a long time in very harsh conditions. Also, 'outcompeting' can mean a lot of things, some more benign than others.

It sounds similar to what was and still to some extent is the 'consensus' theory that they massive extinction of most of North America's large fauna about 10,000 years ago was due to climate change. The strange thing is that those same animals had survived millions of years of climate changes. What happened to occur about 10,000 years ago, however, was the migration of humans into North America. It's starting to be more and more accepted that people hunted most of the large animals to extinction, although there is still considerable resistance to this explanation of events, which I think stems from a standpoint of regarding the relationship between early humans and their environment as being benign. It's a nice attitude, but when you think about it, it might not be the most rational, assuming that early modern humans had more or less the same tendencies as modern ones (most likely true).
Then again, people much more knowledgeable than me can't agree on this, so i'm certainly not claiming i'm right about this.
Here are a few:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?...al.pbio.0020449

http://www.drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/536110.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3023685.stm
-robo

OK, but did you see the recent thread http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=17369

The jury is still out on this.

[BobZenor]

I agree with Robo that the best explanation is that modern humans exterminated them. I think that modern humans owe much of their survival to the fact that they invented better ways to kill their neighbors. They attacked with better weapons, strategy and especially greater numbers by using increasingly extended social organizations. Humans attack in mass periodically to gain territory. We probably owe our much more sophisticated social structures on those sorts of tendencies. Other hominids very likely couldn't survive an attack by hundreds of armed modern humans. Something like that would likely end the reign of local Neanderthals very quickly. Some remote ones may have survived for some time but I suspect that modern humans were most likely more into warfare than other hominids. It makes us very dangerous to have around. Hopefully we will get better at controlling that urge some day.

I do believe that we may have a fear response when we smell the strange smelling strong order of another hominid. Most people would recognize the potential threat and would be afraid of a strange unknown hominid even without the smell. Smell is more personal then seeing a shape in the distance and I think it would have more of an emotional response. I remember my discomfort when I thought I might be smelling one.

[robo]

OK, but did you see the recent thread http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=17369

The jury is still out on this.

It's an interesting series of findings, and i definitely agree that the jury is still out (and probably it'll be a while before they come back )

Another thing to consider, though, is that human cultures can have a vastly varied range of social customs and taboos. What is unthinkable in one culture may be standard practice in another, and in prehistoric times, a single tribe could have a completely different culture than its next door neighbor (see various stone age tribes in New Guinea, for example). So it's not at all far fetched to posit that certain groups of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis could have had friendly (very friendly) relations, while in general this was not the case. Indeed, it may have been that hybrid offspring were eventually killed off as well, although that is pure conjecture on my part.

This post has been edited by robo: Jan 20 2007, 09:37 AM

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

I agree with Robo that the best explanation is that modern humans exterminated them. I think that modern humans owe much of their survival to the fact that they invented better ways to kill their neighbors. They attacked with better weapons, strategy and especially greater numbers by using increasingly extended social organizations. Humans attack in mass periodically to gain territory. We probably owe our much more sophisticated social structures on those sorts of tendencies. Other hominids very likely couldn't survive an attack by hundreds of armed modern humans. Something like that would likely end the reign of local Neanderthals very quickly. Some remote ones may have survived for some time but I suspect that modern humans were most likely more into warfare than other hominids. It makes us very dangerous to have around. Hopefully we will get better at controlling that urge some day.

I do believe that we may have a fear response when we smell the strange smelling strong order of another hominid. Most people would recognize the potential threat and would be afraid of a strange unknown hominid even without the smell. Smell is more personal then seeing a shape in the distance and I think it would have more of an emotional response. I remember my discomfort when I thought I might be smelling one.

Again, it was probably a variety of factors. There is not enough evidence to make a valid scientific decision on how they went the way of the dodo, though being out-competed over a steady leangth of time, environmental changes, interbreeding, and perhaps even "genocide" (though there is no archeological evidence for this) all probably interacted with eachother.

I don't know why this "hominid" smell theory keeps popping up, people feel afraid before encountering anything out of the ordinary, like "being watched" before a mountain lion sighting case in point, people even have this feeling while being stalked by other humans. It is nothing special to Sasquatch.

As for the drama of humans attacking other hominids in mass, again, no evidence archeologically. "Warfare" as we know it cropped up around the time of civilization, not while living in bands. Besides being to risky, modern bands of stone tech peoples generally make small raids on eachother, not full out genocides and battles.

[BobZenor]

I agree with Robo that the best explanation is that modern humans exterminated them. I think that modern humans owe much of their survival to the fact that they invented better ways to kill their neighbors. They attacked with better weapons, strategy and especially greater numbers by using increasingly extended social organizations. Humans attack in mass periodically to gain territory. We probably owe our much more sophisticated social structures on those sorts of tendencies. Other hominids very likely couldn't survive an attack by hundreds of armed modern humans. Something like that would likely end the reign of local Neanderthals very quickly. Some remote ones may have survived for some time but I suspect that modern humans were most likely more into warfare than other hominids. It makes us very dangerous to have around. Hopefully we will get better at controlling that urge some day.

I do believe that we may have a fear response when we smell the strange smelling strong order of another hominid. Most people would recognize the potential threat and would be afraid of a strange unknown hominid even without the smell. Smell is more personal then seeing a shape in the distance and I think it would have more of an emotional response. I remember my discomfort when I thought I might be smelling one.

Again, it was probably a variety of factors. There is not enough evidence to make a valid scientific decision on how they went the way of the dodo, though being out-competed over a steady leangth of time, environmental changes, interbreeding, and perhaps even "genocide" (though there is no archeological evidence for this) all probably interacted with eachother.

In my opinion annihilation is the best explanation. I am sure they just "competed" with them until they became superior in numbers. It is prehistoric and there is no rational reason to expect to see evidence of mass attacks. It is an opinion based on observation of nearly every group of modern humans known and their histories as far back as we know.

I don't know why this "hominid" smell theory keeps popping up, people feel afraid before encountering anything out of the ordinary, like "being watched" before a mountain lion sighting case in point, people even have this feeling while being stalked by other humans. It is nothing special to Sasquatch.

In my opinion there is a possibility for an innate fear of a strange smell of a different hominid as opposed to just the idea or sight of another hominid. A visual fear or fear of a hypothetical hominid seems to complex for me to believe it likely to be an instinct. Humans and some apes use apocrine glands to create smell and it may be there at least partially as an intimidation factor and I could definitely see that being hardwired. I have no idea what that has to do with being watch by a mountain lion. Sasquatch is practically the definition of movie monster and would obviously be something special as far as fear is concerned. I was talking about why a person might have an innate fear of a Neanderthal.

As for the drama of humans attacking other hominids in mass, again, no evidence archeologically. "Warfare" as we know it cropped up around the time of civilization, not while living in bands. Besides being to risky, modern bands of stone tech peoples generally make small raids on eachother, not full out genocides and battles.

"Civilization" is just an extension of what existed before. That is why I said increasing extended social organization. I was not trying to be dramatic but not write a book on the subject. Just because raids are more common than all out attacks doesn't mean that an all out annihilation would not occur if there was any vulnerability. It has the same effect if the inhabitants become slaves. They dramatically reduce their future contribution to the gene pool. If they are a different species, their use as slaves or wives is dramatically reduce and they would likely be annihilated when the opportunity presented itself.(JMO) The reason that moderns generally make raids is because equilibrium develops. It is much less likely to develop when one group is technologically and probably strategically superior. It also requires that you think in terms of hundreds of years because it would probably take a long time to become firmly established in a new environment and Neanderthals were not likely pushovers.

[Flashman]

I was thinking that if there is an innate fear of "big hairy men" somewhere in us, that it seems to me it might be from another cause. I'm thinking it is maybe a fear of the atavistic "man" within us, all muscles and testosterone, the beast within. Something along the same lines as how the "American Werewolf" films were allegorical for the changes of puberty. Thus maybe we project what we fear within ourselves as an atavism, a raging beast, powerful, violent, treacherous, bearing all the faults of humanity we despise and seek to keep hidden within ourselves.....

... well it's one for the psych majors to get their teeth into anyway...

Flash.

[Incorrigible1]

Personally, I fear most any creature twice or three times my size, strong enough to tear me limb from limb, who's senses are probably more acute than my own, that's faster and more elusive than I am, and that I know nothing about. I don't have a problem admitting that fact to anyone. Fear is a healthy survival response.

[Hairy Man]

Again, it was probably a variety of factors. There is not enough evidence to make a valid scientific decision on how they went the way of the dodo, though being out-competed over a steady leangth of time, environmental changes, interbreeding, and perhaps even "genocide" (though there is no archeological evidence for this) all probably interacted with eachother.

I don't know why this "hominid" smell theory keeps popping up, people feel afraid before encountering anything out of the ordinary, like "being watched" before a mountain lion sighting case in point, people even have this feeling while being stalked by other humans. It is nothing special to Sasquatch.

As for the drama of humans attacking other hominids in mass, again, no evidence archeologically. "Warfare" as we know it cropped up around the time of civilization, not while living in bands. Besides being to risky, modern bands of stone tech peoples generally make small raids on eachother, not full out genocides and battles.

I completely agree FS/D. The few Neanderthal bones we have with cut marks are attributed to cannibal behavior by Neanderthals themselves, indicating to me, huge environmental pressures due to a whole bunch of factors (environmental as well as cultural). I have seen no evidence of mass extermination by humans.

As to fear, I find it very, very interesting on an anthropological level, having experienced it myself in the field. Many people I have talked to that has experienced this intense fear mentioned that their first thought was "evil" or "demon" (and which I think is a good explanation for so many land features in bigfoot habitat being called "Devil Garden" "Hells Kitchen" "Hell's Half Acre" [example of features in Sonora]. I wonder if our fears are more based on modern beliefs than anything ingrained in our psyche from prehistoric encounters.

[Former_Northwest...]

In my opinion there is a possibility for an innate fear of a strange smell of a different hominid as opposed to just the idea or sight of another hominid. A visual fear or fear of a hypothetical hominid seems to complex for me to believe it likely to be an instinct. Humans and some apes use apocrine glands to create smell and it may be there at least partially as an intimidation factor and I could definitely see that being hardwired. I have no idea what that has to do with being watch by a mountain lion. Sasquatch is practically the definition of movie monster and would obviously be something special as far as fear is concerned. I was talking about why a person might have an innate fear of a Neanderthal.

In my opinion, it's the other way around. The human sense of smell has seriously 'devolved' (became less sensitive) at the same time the visual cortex became more sophisticated and capable. I think it's more likely that we have instincts to fear visual cues than olfactory (smell) cues. This probably came about due to the shift to hunting and the ability to cook food.

Since the visual system of the human is its most critical sensory system, it makes sense that an instinct could exist to fear the sight of a real or imagined competitor.

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

In my opinion there is a possibility for an innate fear of a strange smell of a different hominid as opposed to just the idea or sight of another hominid. A visual fear or fear of a hypothetical hominid seems to complex for me to believe it likely to be an instinct. Humans and some apes use apocrine glands to create smell and it may be there at least partially as an intimidation factor and I could definitely see that being hardwired. I have no idea what that has to do with being watch by a mountain lion. Sasquatch is practically the definition of movie monster and would obviously be something special as far as fear is concerned. I was talking about why a person might have an innate fear of a Neanderthal.

What it has to do witt the subject is that we feel the same fear from a a large cat but that doesn't mean that we are have specialized sense to be afraid of a large cat. Alot of factors are at play in any encounter with predatory wildlife, it is silly to suggest that the fear response in Sasquatch sightings is do to some hardwired fear of large, upright, hairy things. There is some evidence to suggest that Sasquatch use ultrasound in their vocalizations, as do alot of other mammals, which can provoke feelings of strong fear. I once briefly talked to a woman who had heard a call that freaked out her livestock and pets. Which is also not uncommon in reports, Gimlin and Pattersons horses were freaked out for example, and there are numerus reports of terrified dogs. Unusual and uncomortable noises probably account for this, not that horses, dogs, cows, and cats have an innate fear of hairy bipeds :new_tiredsmiley: .

"Civilization" is just an extension of what existed before. That is why I said increasing extended social organization. I was not trying to be dramatic but not write a book on the subject. Just because raids are more common than all out attacks doesn't mean that an all out annihilation would not occur if there was any vulnerability. It has the same effect if the inhabitants become slaves. They dramatically reduce their future contribution to the gene pool. If they are a different species, their use as slaves or wives is dramatically reduce and they would likely be annihilated when the opportunity presented itself.(JMO) The reason that moderns generally make raids is because equilibrium develops. It is much less likely to develop when one group is technologically and probably strategically superior. It also requires that you think in terms of hundreds of years because it would probably take a long time to become firmly established in a new environment and Neanderthals were not likely pushovers.

In my opinion annihilation is the best explanation. I am sure they just "competed" with them until they became superior in numbers. It is prehistoric and there is no rational reason to expect to see evidence of mass attacks. It is an opinion based on observation of nearly every group of modern humans known and their histories as far back as we know.

Civilization is not simply an extension of "what existed before". The competition for resources became much more intense as the manufacturing of metal and the advent of agriculture led to larger groups of people, which in turn created a stratified social structure and centralized political power. This is a huge difference from a small group of "hunter/gatherers", which is what Neanderthals were confronted with. There is no evidence to suggest that these peoples were organized, large, and sufficient enough to stage a genocide, which was more likely occurance after the rise of "civilization".

There is evidence of strong violence in prehistoric times (check out Paul Bahns chapter in Written in Bones titled "Prehistoric homicide and assault"). No evidence of strong violence has shown up on Neanderthal remains, which you would expect in the cases of large bone deposits associated with genocide.

The theory that Neanderthals were completely annhilated does not hold water.

[BobZenor]

In my opinion, it's the other way around. The human sense of smell has seriously 'devolved' (became less sensitive) at the same time the visual cortex became more sophisticated and capable. I think it's more likely that we have instincts to fear visual cues than olfactory (smell) cues. This probably came about due to the shift to hunting and the ability to cook food.

Since the visual system of the human is its most critical sensory system, it makes sense that an instinct could exist to fear the sight of a real or imagined competitor.

When you smell something, you sometimes get an instant memory of where you were when you last smelled it. I visited the place where I grew up in San Diego and tasted a plant of the mustard family(actually smelled). I knew exactly what it tasted like from 40 years previous and it reminded me of when I was a few years old. I think that we still retain some of the more primitive sensory systems but don't often use them. I don't know how a visual representation could be represented in DNA and I think that complex memories are more likely influenced by mother when very young. It is an absolutely fascinating subject to me but the complexity makes me doubt it could be encoded or retained.

The theory that Neanderthals were completely annhilated does not hold water.

Blah blah blah

[moregon]

When you smell something, you sometimes get an instant memory of where you were when you last smelled it...

That sensation you're speaking of has been used as an explaination for the phenomena we call Deja Vu, when people believe they've been someplace before although they've never been there before. It doesn't explain the cases where people seem to be able to pick out visual landmarks but certainly could explain the simple "Feeling" of familiarity. Our noses could pick up a smell or combination of smells that we aren't consciously aware of but we simply know exists somewhere in our memory.