• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

More on Neanderthals

Clearly, because they might have been as handy as modern men that is the reason why they died out! Arr, Arr, Arr.
 
Makes you think about how the world would be now if they had not died out.
 
Bigger brains, better manual dexterity...

No evidence of Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon warfare...

Maybe they died out as the result of a disease carried out of Africa by the modern humans.
 
It has been suggested that they didn't die out at all... but got absorbed back into humankind.

For an entertaining story based upon this notion, read "Eaters of the Dead" by Michael Crichton. Crichton takes a REAL diary of an Arab historian, and adds to it, basically retelling the "Beowulf" legend in a very realistic fashion.
 
Brown said:
It has been suggested that they didn't die out at all... but got absorbed back into humankind.

For an entertaining story based upon this notion, read "Eaters of the Dead" by Michael Crichton. Crichton takes a REAL diary of an Arab historian, and adds to it, basically retelling the "Beowulf" legend in a very realistic fashion.
Click to expand...
RE: Neandertals mixing back into the H. sapiens line; you can find a recent thread about that. Current evidence is against.

RE: using "realistic" and "Crichton" in the same sentence: don't get me started.
 
I remember reading that their vocal chords may not have been able to produce complex sounds. So their communication was not as advanced as Homo sapiens and information didn't flow as efficiently.

BB
 
That was based on a difference in shape of the hyoid bone. It's one that holds the vocal chords/larynx in place, I think. The difference in shape is supposed to have reduced the number of sounds able to be produced.
 
But some evidence suggests that Neanderthals may have been equally intelligent. In particular, the average Neanderthal brain is larger than that of contemporary humans.
Click to expand...
Brain size alone is not a completely reliable indicator of intelligence.
 
One theory that I saw as to why Neanderthal man became extinct was that perhaps Neanderthals generally lived in the same area all their lives and so they had to find food all year round from the same area. Whereas modern man travelled around vast areas which meant they were able to find more and varied food sources hence allowing greater population success.

You could imagine with the different seasons and only certain foods being available in each one that Neanderthal could fall on hard times during harsh winters or very hot summers. Modern man would follow the warmer weathers and avoid the freezing temps in lands with very little food sources. Makes a bit of sense. But Modern man was probably more superior in most ways, therefore he survived.
 
There is also evidence, dating back around 500 000 yrs (to the time of Homo Erectus) that temporary structures such as tents were used. There are remnants of post holes that are associated with tools, and animal remains.

The whole area of study is still very cloudy.
 
Are there any images of what the Homo Erectus might have looked like?
I don’t believe I have seen what there appearance is.
 
There's a Homo Ergaster representation on the cover of the Aug 2002 National Geographic.

I can't find the other National Geographic pics I've seen. One is of a female Homo Erectus, and there are some Neanderthal reconstructions and manipulations of current pictures that they did.
 
Just read SF, "Homidids" and "Humans" , an interesting exploration of Sapiens interacting with Neandertalis.
There's an interesting explanation of why Neanders never took up agriculture, offered by a Neander scientist.
Just as valid as any other theories I've seen recently.
 
Just a thought...we seem to spend quite a bit of time seeing what it was that makes us better than the neanderthals. Is this legitimate? Could it simply be that we lucked out? They had bigger brains, roughly equal dexterity, but hey, ◊◊◊◊ happens and we end up the beneficiaries of a couple of accidents here and there and, in the words of Frost, "that has made all the difference."

Certainly, we may be "more fit." Some would say that is true by definition, since we made it and they did not. But the search for superiority strikes me as having a note of desparation--if not god's chosen ones, at least we are the best of the best of the best (with honors, sir!) in the game of survival of the fittest.

again, just a thought...
 
Badger said:
That was based on a difference in shape of the hyoid bone. It's one that holds the vocal chords/larynx in place, I think.
Click to expand...
You are not correct about the vocal chords and not really correct about the larynx.

The hyoid bone is the only bone that does not form a joint with any other bone in the body (although it is attached by a ligament to the styloid process of the temporal bone on each side). It serves as a point of attachment for a number of muscles above the hyoid (suprahyoid muscles) and below the hyoid (infrahyoid muscles). These muscles move the larynx up and down during speech and swallowing. It also helps support the tongue.

regards,
BillyJoe
 
Thanks for the more detailed description, Billyjoe. I appreciate it.
 
Dymanic said:

Brain size alone is not a completely reliable indicator of intelligence.
Click to expand...

I've wondered about how reliable the brain size estimates are- if they are calculated from the skull volume alone, then presumably the thickness of membranes and amount of fluid surrounding the brain have to be estimated, and taken into account.

When the volumes are fairly close, as in Neanderthals and modern man, does the error in these estimates reduce the significance of the difference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom