Comments on: Shanidar III – A Neandertal who ate his veggies… Or at least chewed them

By: gary

gary — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:44:50 +0000

Some of the plant remains in the Shanidar graves are of species still found commonly in Iraq today. Would it not also be reasonable to suggest that other plants, edible ones, like almonds, figs, or pomegranites might also have been growing there at that time too? These are not difficult to process into food and often bear abundantly. So why wouldn’t Neanderthals in that part of the world use them?

Also, are the isotopic studies of Neanderthal bones representative of the larger population from Central Asia to Spain or only of some northern European individuals?

By: Mousterian Spears, Modern Projectiles and Shanidar III « Anthropology.net

Mousterian Spears, Modern Projectiles and Shanidar III « Anthropology.net — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 01:19:43 +0000

[...] we see from this earlier post by Kambiz here at Anthropology.net, back in 2008, regardless of whether his rib injury was deliberate or accidental, Shanidar III is a [...]

By: Kari

Kari — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:26:12 +0000

hmm.. after reading this I”m now going to go brush my teeth :-)

By: Why Do Women Have More Cavities? « Anthropology.net

Why Do Women Have More Cavities? « Anthropology.net — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:45:42 +0000

[...] Throughout time, women have had more cavities on average than men. I’ve explained how cavities are formed in a previou post. Diet change and sexual division of labor have been suggested to be the dominant forces at play. [...]

By: According to Yoel Rack, Neandertals were ‘big mouth Bass’ variants of humans « Anthropology.net

Tue, 06 May 2008 00:15:07 +0000

[...] I introduced related studies that showed how Neandertals may have eaten plants and how form may not equal function in regards to hominin mastication anatomy. I have some concerns [...]

By: Microwear analysis on Paranthropus boisei teeth imply form may not equal function « Anthropology.net

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:03:11 +0000

[...] assumed was going on with the form and the function of these robust australopithecine teeth. I even repeated this assumption in a recent post, discussing the dietary implications of a [...]

By: Kambiz

Kambiz — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:57:00 +0000

John Smith,

I’m pretty sure plant eating is a much easier source of nutrition compared to hunting when you have an injury that impedes your mobility. I mean it is a no brainer, comparing a food source that doesn’t run away to one that does is obvious.

Even in hunter gatherer groups without injured individuals, gathering of plants yields more net calories than a hunt.

Sedentary means not doing much work, not moving about long distances to track prey, etc. I think there’s a direct linkage to eating plants and staying relatively more local compared to hunting game.

Kambiz

By: Kambiz

Kambiz — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:47:27 +0000

Exactly my point, archaeozoo.

By: archaeozoo

archaeozoo — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:12:33 +0000

Do we have any evidence that Neanderthals were 100% carnivorous? Whilst I seem to recall isotopic studies that suggested they did eat meat, it seems unreasonable to suppose that plant material – if available – was not consumed. Hominids for the most part seem to be omnivorous.

By: John Smith

John Smith — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:05:09 +0000

Why would plant eating be related to injury? Isn’t it just easier? Why would they have hunted much at all?

Also, why the link between plant food and sedentary food? Its not like he was farming it was he?

thanks for the thoughts!
Anonymous