Astronauts vs Cavemen. Who wins?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Anthropological evidence suggests otherwise.

Modern strength training at the really serious level is primarily about looks (body building) or athletic performance in particular sports.

I have very little respect for bodybuilding as a goal, especially since the increased muscle mass is not tied to a proportionate increase in strength, since hypertrophy occurs most readily in a training zone emphasising mostly an odd form of muscular endurance (10-12 reps per set)

Actual strength training, on the other hand, leads quite quickly to a level of musculature which early modern humans and Neanderthals would be hard-pressed to equal. I doubt any Neanderthals could bench 200 lbs or accomplish any similar feats of strength, whereas a modern human with proper diet and exercise can easily reach that level in under a year.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Raw strength isn't really of much scientific interest, but you could do either estimates of their ability to lift certain masses, or infer strength indirectly from indications of what type of prey they brought down and how (think mammoths and thrusting attacks with short spears).

We really can't know much from that. Most likely catching a big animal was a matter of organization, not physical strength.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I have very little respect for bodybuilding as a goal, especially since the increased muscle mass is not tied to a proportionate increase in strength, since hypertrophy occurs most readily in a training zone emphasising mostly an odd form of muscular endurance (10-12 reps per set)

Actual strength training, on the other hand, leads quite quickly to a level of musculature which early modern humans and Neanderthals would be hard-pressed to equal. I doubt any Neanderthals could bench 200 lbs or accomplish any similar feats of strength, whereas a modern human with proper diet and exercise can easily reach that level in under a year.

We don't have live Neanderthals to compare, but given what we know of their hunting and living habits, I doubt you'd find many adult male Neanderthals who couldn't do the equivalent of benching 200 lbs. The evidence of both their musculature and the injuries of hunting and other mishaps certainly indicates higher strength.

Everything about Neanderthal's existence was based on strength and endurance. You didn't kill food, haul it to someplace defensible and safe, and defend it from other predators (who'd just as soon eat you, too) or other bands of Neanderthal and other hominids, you didn't live. It's that simple.

And no horseback riding, no bow hunting, no throwing of spears until at most ~30,000 years ago - get up close and personal, stick it and skin it and fight off anything else that wanted a free meal.

I'd put that 24/365 regime up against modern weight training and nutritional supplements any day. Neanderthal wouldn't look as pretty up on a stage, or be as smooth diddling with a Nautilus machine, but they'd sure as hell get it done.

[Geronimo]

poor neanderthals. How could such a strong species with brains larger in absolute terms and proportionately than our own go extinct? There must have been some serious handicap we aren't aware of. A handicap a wily opponent could identify and exploit.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by VetLegion


We really can't know much from that. Most likely catching a big animal was a matter of organization, not physical strength.

Actually, we can - we know they didn't go one on one with an animal like that, but anthropological evidence from kill sites, hominid burial sites and random finds, tools, and particularly evidence of injuries and wounds to both hominid remains and prey remains at camp sites give us a lot of info to work with.

There is a find in Germany from ~30,000 years ago which gives evidence of throwing behavior (the type of spears and wear on the shoulder and elbow joints), but the last I read, it was inconclusive and represented only a single site. We do know the level of toolmaking technology, the degree of musculature, indicia of population density, and other factors. Certainly organization was needed and allowed for success, but the dirty work had to be done by brute force.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Geronimo
poor neanderthals. How could such a strong species with brains larger in absolute terms and proportionately than our own go extinct? There must have been some serious handicap we aren't aware of. A handicap a wily opponent could identify and exploit.

We are aware of their limitations - dental and palatal evidence indicates they almost certainly had limited language abilities, and their heavier builds would be expected to decrease mobility and increase the energy consumption necessary for their daily activities.

Contemporaneous hominids such as Cro-Magnon showed evidence of more advanced vocalization, more sophisticated toolmaking abilities, and a physique that likely gave them a more sustainable energy budget under widely varying environmental conditions. All of these factors would tend to support larger social groupings, which would foster linguistic, cultural and technological development.

There's evidence that Neanderthal simply became another type of prey for more adaptable, more advanced hominids.

[Geronimo]

So they may have been more intelligent but because they couldn't enunciate properly they all went extinct?

[Traianvs]

Celts had rather well developed ploughs, and had already started having denser populations in oppida... Saying they were pastoralists isn't particularly true, though I suppose in many places such as less inhabitable areas such as mountainous areas pastoralism was kept in existance, but to say that Celts were pastoralists in general when the Romans came in is false.


Also, Neanderthals had huge strength. They had successfully adapted to colder climates in Europe and had developed an energy demanding physique. I don't know much about prehistory myself but this has been proven in countless papers. Mike Tyson would probably not be able to compete with a healthy and fit Neanderthal.

Besides it has been suggested that Neanderthals and modern humans for a period of time had a similar set of tools; in any case that the result of production possibilities were pretty much the same, but that neanderthals had lesser adaptability when it comes to sudden climate changes, etc and were outcompeted by modern humans. All that is tentative though and in fact nothing can be proven with certainty... most of the literature on it can be interpreted in a million ways . But the fact that neanderthals were very tough and strong stands without a doubt

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know much about prehistory myself but this has been proven in countless papers. Mike Tyson would probably not be able to compete with a healthy and fit Neanderthal.

I would love to see your references on this.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't have a doubt that Neanderhals were, on the average, stronger than contemporaneous anatomically modern humans. But the disparity in strengths was not, I am quite certain, so extreme as you claim..

[KrazyHorse]

The references I've found have stated that the only statistically significant difference in strangth as computed by bone thickness is in the right arm of Neanderthals, which appears to be ~40% stronger than the right arm of contemporaneous anatomically modern humans.

Given that modern humans can easily more than double their arm strength over the course of a year of training, this seems to me to be significant, but not overwhelming.

[Geronimo]

I wonder if the neanderthals might have been superior but just had a slightly slower reproductive rate? I've heard the red squirrel is being replaced in europe by the north american gray squirrel due almost entirely to just such a slight edge in reproductive rate.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Traianvs Also, Neanderthals had huge strength. They had successfully adapted to colder climates in Europe and had developed an energy demanding physique. I don't know much about prehistory myself but this has been proven in countless papers. Mike Tyson would probably not be able to compete with a healthy and fit Neanderthal.

Mike Tyson would eat an entire tribe of them for breakfast.

[Straybow]

First, he wouldn't make it through space camp.
Second, he didn't eat the ear.

Pay attention, this is "Astronauts vs Cavemen," not professional athletes vs cavemen.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Geronimo
So they may have been more intelligent but because they couldn't enunciate properly they all went extinct?

We're not the only ones with an immigrant problem.

Originally posted by Straybow
First, he wouldn't make it through space camp.

Nor band camp.