Correct me if I'm wrong, but:
-
burke8 — 20 years ago(January 18, 2006 02:25 PM)
besides the two obvious human species in the movie, one being neanderthal and the other homo sapien/ cromagnon, i believe that one of the others was java man or homo erectus. there is evidence that suggests all three coexisted at one point. the java man is thought to have existed as long as 27,000 years ago. they are suppose to have died out around the same time as neanterthal. as for the fourth, im not sure. any thoughts
-
solongthanks — 20 years ago(January 18, 2006 03:47 PM)
Well, as I remember, the date for the movie is something like 80,000 years ago. And given the reference to neanderthal and modern Homo interaction, I think we can assume it's Europe.
Java man is a specific find (an individual, or at most two individuals, not a group) and it's date is well over half a million years ago (at least, though some dates are given close to 2 million.). But yes if you mean to use Java man as an alternate term for Homo erectus(the Java man finds are likely erectus).
However, I am not aware of any evidence that places erectus in that area at this time. If you're aware of something that associates neandertal, modern homo, and erectus 27,000 years ago, it must be relatively new- and I'd love to know about it!
We have H. heidelbergensis finds that date something around 120,000 years ago- I believe, and heidelbergensis is often thought to be an intermediary between erectus and modern Homo. So that's a possibility.
Having said that, I would say that it's possible that these (or other) groups were all present, in the area at this time. Our evidence will only tell us what was present- it cannot tell us what was NOT present. So the possibility is open.
Cheers!
EDIT: I think it's important to note that there are two separate questions here:
First, what are the possibilities of hominid types given our evidence?
Second, what did the movie-makers intend to show us?
(Meaning, we should not assume that the movie makers were basing this on the actual evidence available.) -
jax-28 — 18 years ago(June 03, 2007 01:35 PM)
By the novel the ape attackers are indeed Neanderthals and the main tribe some hapless tribe of Homo Sapiens. But the book is way out of date, it is ancient, and it makes more sense to consider the main tribe to be Neanderthals and the Rae Dawn Chong tribe as Homo Sapiens, the apes and cannibals don't match well to any known (sub-)species, but could be fictional/lost.
As such it creates a fairly believable scenario (the main tribe is weaker/stupider/more unlucky than I would imagine a Neanderthal tribe to be, but I could go with it). You could also imagine how the Neanderthals would be replaced by modern humans, it also obliquely covers the old questions: Are we in ever so small parts descendants of the Neanderthals (current science mainly says no, but there is some wiggle room)?
There is a Neanderthal genome project underway that promises to tell us more about our story vis-a-vis the Neanderthals, how we are the same and how we are different. -
solongthanks — 18 years ago(June 03, 2007 04:53 PM)
"current science mainly says no"
I don't agree. I think that even among those that interpret the genetic data (which has significant problems) to mean that Homo sapiens did 'overtake' neandertals it is often suggested that their DNA was swamped (meaning that there is ancestry) and not necessarily non-existent in our history. The hybrid fossil is pretty sigificant too, imo. The popularized view is often that the DNA evidence 'proved' something, but according to science the jury is still very much out
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Philip K. Dick -
soue37-1 — 18 years ago(June 05, 2007 08:59 PM)
According to the documentary on the DVD, the Wagabu are Neanderthals while the Ulams are Homo sapiens. I personally consider the Ulam to be Neanderthal, the Wagabu as Homo Erectus, the Kzamm as Homo Heidelbergensis and the Ivaka as Homo Sapiens.
-
raven-1971 — 18 years ago(September 20, 2007 07:22 PM)
The fact that he impregnates her does not necessarily mean that they are the same species - the only way to know for certain is if the offspring were to prove viable in their own right. Look at the example of the mule - two species (Horse and Donkey) produce living, albeit sterile, offspring. However, that being said, the romantic in me does "press my thumbs" that they were both indeed Homo sapiens.
As for other species, common consensus says it was too late for Homo erectus to have made an appearance, and even Homo heidelbergensis is extremely unlikely (400,000 years ago is the latest known evidence); however, most anthropologists admit that the whole picture is way, way, WAY too incomplete to not be able to change radically with the next discovery. -
lesstutrey — 18 years ago(March 20, 2008 06:35 PM)
To breed the two would simply have to be in the same genus, i believe is the point being made here. I always looked at it as Neanderthals, Homo Sapiens (Ika) and as for the attacking tribe, utter crap. I always thought they looked more like human like lizards than anything. The book pretty much says, however, that the attacking Wagabu are Neanderthals, Ulams are Cro-Magnon man and of course the Ivaka are just a more advanced early homo-sapien. And actually, that makes sense, aside from the time frame of coexistence being a bit off.
-
I_Created_U — 9 years ago(May 08, 2016 11:38 AM)
Between 5 and 10% of human DNA is actually neanderthalian in origin, which not only goes to show that interbreeding produces viable and fertile offsprings, but also that said interbreeding was not uncommon among the different strains of hominids.
People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs -
margy626 — 18 years ago(July 28, 2007 12:21 PM)
There is evidence that Sapien and Erectus could have crossed paths in Asia, which i think we all agree is not the location of the movie. Still its not totally unthinkable that the three could have met in Europe, even if there is no proof of it. Im not saying this is what i believe happened but to me its an acceptable enough fantasy story. I thought the movie was great by the way, even though the missionary position focus was a bit out of the blue.
Martin -
Henlioc — 18 years ago(January 15, 2008 09:10 PM)
About the location of the movie, I saw the movie for the first time tonight and the whole time I was debating the location. Africa, Northern Europe and Asia are all going through my head. 80,000 years ago, Africa was much more temperate than it is now, but with the mountains and the boglike environment, I have to think that Africa isn't in the running anymore. I peronally think it could have been either Northern Europe or Asia. Remember, the world was much different 80,000 years ago. It's entirely possible that part of it was in Asia, and partly in Europe.
And about the missionary position comment, since Ika's tribe seemd to be much more evolved than Naoh, that was a connection. If you noticed, Ika was laughing when one of Naoh's tribsemen was hurt. The others had no idea what that concept of laughter was. Going with the idea that Ika and her tribe were homo sapiens, they obviously had a better idea of how to survive and continue their genes while Naoh's tribewell they obviously had no clue.
My opinion of the movieit wasn't that great. It was good if you simply looked at the movie side of it, ignoring facts. But I wouldn't recommend this movie to someone who wanted to learn about prehistory, unless it was a general curiosity. -
daggers-1 — 18 years ago(June 21, 2007 01:27 PM)
It was based on a book written in 1911. Of course the science is woefully out of date.
Per various commentaries, the two main groups are Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, with a possible Heidelbergensis group. No older species are present. The differences portrayed are cultural and not racial.
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com -
BrightEyes_PR — 18 years ago(September 04, 2007 07:33 PM)
The Wagambus (sp?) are homo erectus (the tribe that attacked the Ulams.
The Ulams (Naoh's tribe) along with the redheadss are neanderthals and Ika's tribe are a sort of Homo Sapiens.
They say it's hard being a woman in a man's world, but try being a man in
MY
world. -
tar_palantir1 — 18 years ago(March 25, 2008 04:42 PM)
It's actually pretty amazing that the producers put so much detail into making the Ulam look and act like Neanderthals and then, in all of the commentaries, claimed that they were homo sapiens. Pretty weird. It's almost like they got the details accurate by mistake. For example, the actors playing the Ulam had to spend 5 hours in makeup getting on the brow ridges and protruding jaw prosthetics but then they are supposed to be the same (sub?)species as Ika's tribe, who require no prosthetics.