Poll on the Neanderthal man

[jaime]

What molded you to think and have an opinion about the neanderthal man's inteligence and relative position to todays hominid, the Homo Sapiens?

[[Tycho?]]

I dont have an opinion on it. I read stuff about it, and assume its fairly correct, as I have no other source of information on the subject.

[JaKiri]

'']I dont have an opinion on it. I read stuff about it, and assume its fairly correct, as I have no other source of information on the subject.

 

Assuming it is correct is an opinion.

 

In your face, sayo

[Aardvark]

What molded you to think and have an opinion about the neanderthal man's inteligence and relative position to todays hominid, the Homo Sapiens?

 

Archaeological excavations, bone/skull measurements, examinations of grave goods, DNA analysis. Results reported in such mediums as National Geographic and New Scientist.

[Auburngirl05]

There was an article in a recent issue of Nature that talked about early Homo sapiens migrations and how it may have affected the disappearance of the Neanderthals, if you can get ahold of the pdf file it's definitely worth reading.

[jaime]

Want to mention, I was very disappointed with the depiction of Neanderthals in the late National Geographic program on Neanderthals. In such program, Neanderthals, contrary to evidence, where depicted as small, short fat and inferior hominids. Evidence shows Neanderthals has lower cranial cavities,yes, but longer as well. Average Neanderthal brain capacity is larger than Homo Sapiens'.The face has the mid area as the outstanding feature, as if a clay skull of a Homo Sapiens , clay, fresh, was pulled out by the nose area. Also we know about the prominent brow ridges. The nose was large,the eyes were larger too, due to larger eye sockets.

The Image presented by National Geographic was one with no elongated and larger braincase, no mid face protuding forward,no larger eyes,yes, the classic big brow ridges were there, as well as the nose, but these 2 characteristics without the rest of the facial features rendered the Neanderthals as something they did not look like. I believe it was a uncientific, or unprofesional job done, either the purpose was to depict Neanderthals as inferior, (ignorance on part of national geographic is not a valid explanation)or else, poor production, lack of technology to depict the neanderthals in their real dimension, inhablity, which ever it was, reasons enough to have not permited such program to go in the air. Such misrepresentations create the perpetuated view that Neanderthals were an inferior hominid, it is a disgrace.

The body structure depicted in the program was also off the track by far. Neanderthals, if we are to compare them to Homo Sapiens, are in a way in the same league as when the Smilodon Populator(sabre toothed cat from South America, the biggest sabre ever) is compared to a lion.Many texts describe the Smilodon as being about the size of the lion, a bit larger. They fail to mention that, and this is also omitted in many ilustrations, that the Smilodon was much more built, heavier, and overall stronger cat. Even the NG depictions of sabre toothed cats is misleading. When going back to the Neanderthal man, the body, as evidenced by many findings, is the body of a much stronger individual. Muscle mass is very developed(judged by the tendon attachment points in the bones), and the bones are much thicker. Hands and feet are wider and more developed,the proportion of the forearm to the arm is such that it gave Neanderthals a tremendous leverage and consecuently super strengh as compared to the Homo Sapiens. The shoulder girdle area is much wider and developed, with longer clavicle collar bones.

Again, these and other body proportions and aspects, which are extremely important when visualizing a re creation of a extinc species, all these facts where omitted and degraded. The impression after viewing such program is one in which the neanderthal man looks like a insignificant weirdo doomed to perish when confronted with the magnificent Homo Sapiens. I felt cheated, not because I was going to be swayed into thinking that Neanderthals are inferior, but because the great mass of viewers that are not really educated into the matter would buy such shamefull depiction of Neanderthals, perpetuating the mith about Homo Sapiens supremacy over Neanderthals. It made me think that we might still live in the dark ages of paleontology and anthropology, when neanderthals were on purpose depicted as swayed, humpbacked, idiotic monsters.

If the excuse is that the producers could not make a real depiction because of technology or resources, then it is better not to make a movie "just because", this is science, not saturday night movie special. We are talking about National Geographic.

I just wanted to mention this movie, because I found out many people were lead into thinking that Homo Neanderthalensis was, and is based on that sad depiction, a small, insignificant idiot looser. As long as science insists on maintaining Homo Sapiens top position based on inacuracies and subjective misinformation, we will still live in the dark ages.

Jaime.*******************

[Deathby]

I always read about the great brain volume, but another article that always stuck in my head was one on the relative intelligence of dolphins. Despite their giant brains they may not be the third smartest animals since its not convoluted nor well structured. My memory isn't too great on the specifics, but its like a giant blob of brain cells, as opposed to human brains which are organised into little parts that each organise different things.

 

Also I read somewhere (think SCIAM) that they found evidence of Neanderthal furnaces, which placed them ahead of homo sapiens at one point.

 

Another interesting question is whether you think of them as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis or Homo Neanderthalis. I think the latter is the more correct modern scientific name, but the former is older and may be ingrained mor firmly in peoples minds.

[SubJunk]

my opinion was formed from other people's opinions. until recently I thought neanderthals were stupid, but everything I've read lately has been about how they could've actually been quite intelligent

[Sayonara]

Assuming it is correct is an opinion.

 

In your face' date=' sayo[/b']

I disagree.

 

I assume books on Pythagoras are correct but it doesn't mean I have any opinions about it myself.

 

[Aardvark]

Also I read somewhere (think SCIAM) that they found evidence of Neanderthal furnaces' date=' which placed them ahead of homo sapiens at one point.

.[/quote']

 

That surprises me. Are you sure real furnaces were found rather than camp fire pits?

 

If it is true then that is intriguing.

[Deathby]

That surprises me. Are you sure real furnaces were found rather than camp fire pits?

 

If it is true then that is intriguing.

 

I rather thought so.

 

 

But then again this trend towards intelligent Neanderthals may just be a bandwagon for all anthropologists to jump aboard. I'm sure there's just as much evidence that we are smarter. (First and foremost the fact that we OWNED THEM)

[slickinfinit]

From what I read they did not make weopons and tools as efficient as our ancestors and during the harsh ice age thier inability to compete for the limited supply of food they eventualy bacame extinct.

[atinymonkey]

That surprises me. Are you sure real furnaces were found rather than camp fire pits?

 

If it is true then that is intriguing.

 

It's not true. However there is evidence that stoneage man used charcoal fires. The charcoal fires were discovered because the fire left traces of molten metals, due to the extra heat, in the debris surrounding the fire. The molten metal was the clue as to the heat of the fire, which could only have got to a temperature high enough to melt the ore using charcoal. Unfortunately people seem to assume the molten metal was evidence of some form of furnace, which is not the case.

 

It's possible Neanderthals used charcoal, but it's not very interesting compared to the furnace fallacy.

[Deathby]

Ah yes you're right, that's what I read. The metals stuck in my head somehow and I got confused.

 

You say stoneage man, but I recall there were Neanderthal skeletons and tools (don't remember how they could tell they were Neanderthalian tools) nearby. Would that show that neanderthal man predates sapiens' discovery of advanced fire? It doesn't matter if it was charcoal or not, but simply because they had such hot fires would show a good adaptation to colder conditions in Europe at that time.

 

My knowledge of time periods has always been a bit dodgy. When we kicked em out of Europe was it the beginning or end of the Ice Age?