WI "Eaters of the Dead" Were Real?

ninebucks

Banned
The recent attempt to detail the entire neanderthal genome has introduced considerable surprises.

It is, unfortunately, a highly charged political controversy, but the science behind it indicates a definitive genetic flow from Neanderthal to Sapiens, some 2-4% of spaien genome is directly contributed from Neanderthal.

This is flying in the face of previous analyses and political standpoints, so is highly debated at the moment.

Regardless, a remnant of Neanderthals that lived within France & Northern Europe isn't entirely out of the question for as late as 20,000 BC. 1000 AD would certainly be difficult to believe in the face of an absence of evidence - no clear artifact of indisputable nature.

However, there is an interesting correlation to note, with respect to the OT, in that red hair distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair) follows the 2-4% Neanderthal distributions... the highest concentrations/likelihoods occurring in W. Europe and N. Europe (Scandinavian region)

Blonde hair, likewise, follows the same distribution as well, and is similar in its root cause in genetics - low levels of a dark pigment.

So I'd argue that if Neanderthals were in existence ~1000AD, with metallurgy, they'd be covered in fine blonde hair or red hair, stand somewhat shorter than most scandinavians (5'6 or less to the vikings 6' range), and were far more heavily muscled than the vikings.

Heh - kinda makes you wonder about the legends of the Trolls and Dwarves from the region doesn't it?

They would likely have been very intense carnivores, even cannabilistic if you wish (since it's fiction, not too likely in OTL). Given metallurgy, they should have been quite capable of facing the cultures in the area on a more than equal basis - barring some other element I'm missing.

Given metallurgy early enough, and I doubt the Baltic sea would have had the influx of the battle-axe culture that gave rise to the vikings eventually -- the indigineous Neanderthals would have been quite capable of repulsing any armed entries. I suppose that leaves peaceful entries? trade, cohabitation, interbreeding? Thus leading to the Geats, the Swedes, the Upplanders, the Finns, etc. ?

Honestly, I think the red hair - neanderthals thing is a coincidence. From what I've heard, the blond/redhead mutation becoming dominant was due to the ice age making hunting large game, (mammoths and that), the main source of food, as opposed to gathering fruits and vegetables, (which were scarce in the icy conditions). This massively increased the mortality rate amongst the male hunters, so mutations along the surviving males had a much greater chance of being passed along.

The same ice age conditions that saw the reduction in the male sapiens population probably secured the survival of the neanderthals for longer than elsewhere.
 
Honestly, I think the red hair - neanderthals thing is a coincidence. From what I've heard, the blond/redhead mutation becoming dominant was due to the ice age making hunting large game, (mammoths and that), the main source of food, as opposed to gathering fruits and vegetables, (which were scarce in the icy conditions). This massively increased the mortality rate amongst the male hunters, so mutations along the surviving males had a much greater chance of being passed along.

The same ice age conditions that saw the reduction in the male sapiens population probably secured the survival of the neanderthals for longer than elsewhere.

re: red hair:
Estimates on the original occurrence of the currently active gene for red hair vary from 20,000 to 100,000 years ago.[23][24]
A DNA study has concluded that some Neanderthals also had red hair, although the mutation responsible for this differs from that which causes red hair in modern humans.[25]
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#cite_note-24

Hmm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7062415.stm
Same gene, different mutations.
Also interesting is the 'speech gene' similarities.


re the ice age reducing homo sapiens population
Uhmm I've been collating notes on a TL regarding glaciations and bottlenecked human populations... what ice age reduced human population count significantly? Not even the sudden rise & fall of the YD did that. The catastrophe theories are generally a better fit for any of the bottlenecks in the genetics or archaeology - although the whole subject is still very debatable and 'up in the air'. I'm personally a fan of Catastrophism, but if you have a site referencing H. Sapien decline due to Ice Age Glaciation - please share?
 
So I'd argue that if Neanderthals were in existence ~1000AD, with metallurgy, they'd be covered in fine blonde hair or red hair, stand somewhat shorter than most scandinavians (5'6 or less to the vikings 6' range), and were far more heavily muscled than the vikings.

Heh - kinda makes you wonder about the legends of the Trolls and Dwarves from the region doesn't it?

Vikings skeletons suggest the average adult male was 5'8". Most other European males were about 5'. The Vikings were huge by the standards of the day, but not so today.
 
Top