Researchers: Neanderthals were not inferior to modern humans

a reply to: np6888

Skin color is not the determinant, why do you think it is?

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
I would bet that Neaderthals had their form of drum beats.
Maybe mammoth bone drums and hollow wood.
Imagine being able to go back and hear those beats...I would love that.
I bet they are still similar to todays tribal rhythms though,we still beat the rhythm of the earth.

They played various flutes (one made from the tusk of a mammoth - imagine the tone on that one,) an instrument (possibly) similar to a xylophone and, apparently, a form of bagpipe.
link

I've always been an advocate for ancient humans being more advanced than is commonly believed. For example, I've always thought that Erectus could have been sea faring. At least, to a limited extent.

When I say "commonly believed," I mean believed by non-professionals. Modern professional paleoanthropologists don't typically presume to know such things about ancient humans. They just go with the evidence.

Harte

I never liked the concept of the "cave man". Just because the evidence was found in caves doesn't mean that those people were the rule rather than the exception. Caves are still used as shelter, but does that mean all people live in caves? No, it means some people are cavemen but most live in houses or apartments.

This leads into the idea that the stone age still exists because a human will occasionally pick up a stone and use it as a tool. So occasionally a person will live in a cave, continuing the presence of cavemen into the present day.

a reply to: Harte

That is interesting.

Music has two crossovers that I am curious to explore a bit if you have information on it.

FIrst, the mathematical nature of music, and its use in tuning instruments. Certainly it applies more to stringed instruments...but the tuba and xylophone. The tuba in particular, where trial and error was not as easy (since you drill a hole in a tusk, and its done).

The other is how humans use vocalization in relation to music and tuning. Neandertals in theory had a high pitches voice with little variance in pitch and tone available (when compared to humans, with a much more usable larynx).

How did they tune their instruments? The two mains ways we tune are math and vocalized notes. For example, I know what a b flat in the bass clef sounds like, and can recall it at any time. HOw would a neandertal, with a high pitched voice, been able to tune that tuba to b flat (or whatever it was tuned to)?

(i played tuba as a kid, and have had the opportunity to play my high school sons tuba over the last few years)

originally posted by: Chronon
The scientific evidence continues to pile up: Researchers conclude Neanderthals were not inferior "cave men".

In an extensive review of recent Neanderthal research, University of Colorado Boulder researcher Paola Villa and co-author Wil Roebroeks, an archaeologist at Leiden University in the Netherlands, make the case that the available evidence does not support the opinion that Neanderthals were less advanced than anatomically modern humans.

Neandert hals were not inferior to modern humans

If Neanderthals were capable of cultural rituals and symbolic communication, what else were they capable of? Depending on their capabilities, "civilization" may go back tens of thousands of years older than we have been willing to admit.

New finds in the caves of Spain raise the question of whether Neanderthals made art

Neanderthals Wore Jewelry and Makeup

Would any of this really matter?

We hunted them to the brink of extinction.

Just how common are *Bigfoot* sightings nowdays anyways? That *society* if you want to call it that has be scarce and hiding from us. Do you believe in sasquatch? How hard would it be to believe that Sasquatch is the modern day Neanderthal.

We got plenty of *Neanderthal* bones, which could easily be described as *Sasquatch* bones.
Humans did not evolve the Darwin style because there is no need for a missing link... The Neanderthal legacy continues in the forests.

Sorry scientists lol. But there was never a missing link to begin with, those bones are the ancestors of Sasquatch not Humans.

Our chromosome pairs are Wayyyy off, Also not everyone is carrying the Sasquatch genes, same as cromagnon. Now Mainstream scientists cannot call Sasquatch Neanderthals. So its up to us Conspiacy geeks to set this is motion. So that new TV series can spawn with names like * Hunting the Neanderthal* *Tracking pre-historic neanderthals* *Encounters with a Neanderthal*

Its just blatenly obvious whose bones those are, And il tell you this they arn't mine.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Harte

That is interesting.

Music has two crossovers that I am curious to explore a bit if you have information on it.

FIrst, the mathematical nature of music, and its use in tuning instruments. Certainly it applies more to stringed instruments...but the tuba and xylophone. The tuba in particular, where trial and error was not as easy (since you drill a hole in a tusk, and its done).

The other is how humans use vocalization in relation to music and tuning. Neandertals in theory had a high pitches voice with little variance in pitch and tone available (when compared to humans, with a much more usable larynx).

How did they tune their instruments? The two mains ways we tune are math and vocalized notes. For example, I know what a b flat in the bass clef sounds like, and can recall it at any time. HOw would a neandertal, with a high pitched voice, been able to tune that tuba to b flat (or whatever it was tuned to)?

(i played tuba as a kid, and have had the opportunity to play my high school sons tuba over the last few years)

The tusk is actually a flute, not a tuba.

Such flutes are tuned by increasing the size of the hole(s).

What sort of harmonic system they may have utilized is something of which I'm unaware. But, since instruments have been found, I imagine someone has investigated it and the info is likely somewhere on the internet, or will be.

Harte

originally posted by: AnuTyr

originally posted by: Chronon
The scientific evidence continues to pile up: Researchers conclude Neanderthals were not inferior "cave men".

In an extensive review of recent Neanderthal research, University of Colorado Boulder researcher Paola Villa and co-author Wil Roebroeks, an archaeologist at Leiden University in the Netherlands, make the case that the available evidence does not support the opinion that Neanderthals were less advanced than anatomically modern humans.

Neandert hals were not inferior to modern humans

If Neanderthals were capable of cultural rituals and symbolic communication, what else were they capable of? Depending on their capabilities, "civilization" may go back tens of thousands of years older than we have been willing to admit.

New finds in the caves of Spain raise the question of whether Neanderthals made art

Neanderthals Wore Jewelry and Makeup

Would any of this really matter?

We hunted them to the brink of extinction.

Just how common are *Bigfoot* sightings nowdays anyways? That *society* if you want to call it that has be scarce and hiding from us. Do you believe in sasquatch? How hard would it be to believe that Sasquatch is the modern day Neanderthal.

We got plenty of *Neanderthal* bones, which could easily be described as *Sasquatch* bones.
Humans did not evolve the Darwin style because there is no need for a missing link... The Neanderthal legacy continues in the forests.

Sorry scientists lol. But there was never a missing link to begin with, those bones are the ancestors of Sasquatch not Humans.

Our chromosome pairs are Wayyyy off, Also not everyone is carrying the Sasquatch genes, same as cromagnon. Now Mainstream scientists cannot call Sasquatch Neanderthals. So its up to us Conspiacy geeks to set this is motion. So that new TV series can spawn with names like * Hunting the Neanderthal* *Tracking pre-historic neanderthals* *Encounters with a Neanderthal*

Its just blatenly obvious whose bones those are, And il tell you this they arn't mine.

'You' didn't hunt anyone. You, a likely weak, slovenly Western First-Worlder have nothing to do with the Cro-Magnon hunter-gathers' role in the "extinction" of Neanderthals.


But the thing is, you continue to spout off bull# like the other misinformed pseudo-anthropologists in this thread. As has been previously stated, Europeans and Asiatics have within the range of 1-6% Neanderthal descent. This is verifiable, look it up for yourself if you doubt me.

The Paleolithic Cro-Magnons did not "hunt them to extinction". In all likelihood, they starved to death, unable to compete for dwindling populations of wild game that couldn't support both groups. Neanderthal communities were likely depopulated and abandoned after their marginalization, and the remainder of the Neanderthals came to live and breed among the vastly more numerous Cro-magnons.

Now please, kindly go somewhere else with your silly, childish Sasquatch conspiracy theories.

Oh and by the way, the Cro-Magnons are quite literally our direct ancestors, to deny that would be tantamount to folding a piece of tinfoil and placing it on your head to protect yourself from the "mind waves".

a reply to: AnuTyr

If the Sasquath, Alma and Yeti are real then they are not in any way related to the human races such as neanderthal, cro magnon or today's home sapien unless they are mutations and is only takes one chromosone fault to make us hairy all over, people can grow large and if it is genetic in a tribe then how large is down to generations and weather it would be an advantage at the time the trait is aquired but they if real most likely do have a non human ancestor and we can deduce that as a creature called Gigantopithecus.
These fellas were huge but much smaller brained than us.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.smithsonianmag.com...
www.youtube.com...

Now I can't resist this just to throw a sabot out there (they are from hindu religion and culture).
en.wikipedia.org...'s_Bridge
www.webonautics.com...

There is plenty out there if you look it up and plenty under crypto zoology, it is not my forte but there is most likely a thread or three on the site somewere.

Peace brother and don't take angry nastiness to heart they are the one's whom will give themselves the ulcer with there religophobia/christophobia, everyone's idea has merit we may believe one thing and others an other thing it is simply the way it is, Oh and do not be goaded or take it to heart and do not place your faith in history as science and religion are often incompatible, in part because of the beliefs of the scientists and in part because imperical systems of observation do not work well on historical data due to data loss over time making scientific analysis of ancient anthropological and historical data a jigsaw with missing pieces that self convinced experts force to fit into there criteria often overlooking or even outright ignoring data with is inconvenient, as you know there are reports of item's found in mine's in deep ancient coal and sedimentary deposits layed down million's of years back, everything from skull's and bone's to walls and screw's, nail's and other item's have been reported since the 1800's but today they are ignored especially as mining is mostly automated today and the seam's mined today are even older.

I wish you well but do not let you faith be shaken by the attitude of other's, You know if we had a terrible war that lasted generations and poisoned the world with radioactivity or chemical bacterialogical/viralogical strains then what would our own cave dwelling technology starved descendant's look like after multiple generations of inbreeding and selective survival through environmental adaptation.
Likewise a virus is a nice vehicle for the transferrance of genetic material between species, it is essentially nothing more than a genetic fragment with a enzymatic shell made up of special protiens which allow it to pass through a cell wall, once inside the cell it bond's with the nucleus and hijacks the cell turning it into a factor which makes more copy's of the virus but get this the cell's own genes sometimes become integrated into the virus and then the virus sometime's losed potency and becomes inert in the infected host litterally becoming part of there DNA and thus adding the previous hosts DNA into there DNA, this way pig's and humans and chimps and even dog's can all share gene's through viral propegation of genetic material.
God sometime's I can't stand the armchair expert's.

I recently watched this eccentric researcher w some interesting connections:

YT: Nephilim: TRUE STORY of Satan, Fallen Angels, Giants, Aliens, Hybrids, Elongated Skulls & Nephilim

one of the things he says is that the brow actually grows a little every year and that people pre-flood who lived for hundreds of years would have had brows like neanderthals…

and like with fossil records, where all the animals were bigger pre-flood (more oxygen in the air and other factors) thus the bones would be larger…

Neanderthals may be just pre-flood humans… carbon dating is not reliable...

originally posted by: Gallowglaich
I believe they were actually superior to modern humans in every regard except one.... the Homo sapiens had them outnumbered.

The Mousterian tools and spear points have been proven to be more advanced than any contemporary Homo Sapien technology. Even now Mousterian spear points are nearly impossible to replicate.

Fact is, Neanderthals were more intelligent and better adapted to their environment. There is an agenda being pushed, that has been pushed for many years, to propagate the idea that they were inferior.

Yes, I agree with this assumption. When looking at their "technology", it was superior to Homo Sapiens. I am of the same thought that there was a population explosion of Homo Sapiens and over/inter bred the Neanderthal lineage into extinction (I use that term loosley).

Kratos

Allow me to stir the pot.....
Creationists have been saying all along that we were not more intelligent than the Neanderthal.
It is proven that skull bones as well as long bones never stop growing.
Some people believe this is why the Neanderthal skulls and bodys look the way they do. They lived longer, a lot longer.
It is suggested that they may have matured slower. Just as our children today are maturing faster than those of just a couple of hundred years ago.
Quad

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
I recently watched this eccentric researcher w some interesting connections:

YT: Nephilim: TRUE STORY of Satan, Fallen Angels, Giants, Aliens, Hybrids, Elongated Skulls & Nephilim

one of the things he says is that the brow actually grows a little every year and that people pre-flood who lived for hundreds of years would have had brows like neanderthals…

and like with fossil records, where all the animals were bigger pre-flood (more oxygen in the air and other factors) thus the bones would be larger…

Neanderthals may be just pre-flood humans… carbon dating is not reliable...

ah!
You beat me too it

originally posted by: Verum1quaere


one of the things he says is that the brow actually grows a little every year and that people pre-flood who lived for hundreds of years would have had brows like neanderthals…

Except for that being entirely incorrect. It's simply not true that the suborbital ridge continues to grow indefinitely in H. Sapiens Sapiens. It stops growing right along with all of your other bones. The myth came to be as a result of the illusion of the face appearing bigger as hairlines recede with age.

and like with fossil records, where all the animals were bigger pre-flood (more oxygen in the air and other factors) thus the bones would be larger…

When exactly was that flood? I ask only because this magical time of very high O2 levels occurred 300 MYA during the Carboniferous. It's true that insects and amphibians were massive compared to our current versions. Contrary to the beliefs of many of your ilk, the Cretaceous Period, that's the one that ended with the mass extcinction of all the dinosaurs,had a lower level of oxygen than we currently see today. I am however fascinated hear more about these mysterious other factors in addition to the oxygen levels that you mention in your hypothesis.

Neanderthals may be just pre-flood humans… carbon dating is not reliable...

Well that's a no brainier. Though I suppose it depends on which flood exactly you are referring to. There have been many flood events throughout history and they will likely continue as long as there is water on the planet.

And carbon dating... If youre dating something organic, it's pretty reliable going back to around 40 KYA but that's not so much the point, the better point being... There are so many different forms and methods of dating geologic or fossilized pieces that to base any argument on the fallibility of carbon or C14 dating is patently absurd.

A reply to: peter vlar

Except for that being entirely incorrect. It's simply not true that the suborbital ridge continues to grow indefinitely in H. Sapiens Sapiens. It stops growing right along with all of your other bones. The myth came to be as a result of the illusion of the face appearing bigger as hairlines recede with age. 

Sorry Peter but you got it wrong.

dukemagazine.duke.edu...
Since most bones in the body stop growing after puberty, experts assumed the human skull stopped growing then too. But using CT scans of 100 men and women, the researchers discovered that the bones in the human skull continue to grow as people age. The forehead moves forward while the cheek bones move backward. As the bones move, the overlying muscle and skin also move, subtly changing the shape of the face.

hmmm...........what if?........

a reply to: Quadrivium

Some nice quote mining. I especially like how you excluded all the appropriate addendums from the article such as

And those changes appear to occur more dramatically in women than in men.

Doctors have discovered that it's not gravity that's pulling your skin down—it may be your shifting bone structure.

First, its not a terribly definitive study, its an article based on one researchers findings. Second, there are too many maybes littered throughout said article. Third, the poster I was responding to was alluding that ALL bones would continue to grow and thicken over the lifespan of a human and that was why Neanderthal possessed thicker bones and heavier brow ridge than HSS. Fourth, that supposition is just that. Supposition.

However, just because i still disagree about expanding brow ridges doesn't mean I'm not open to newer data showing me to be incorrect. Even an arrogant bastard like me can admit to being wrong sometimes. It doesn't change the fact though that Neanderthals were not super long lived "normal" or modern humans. The facts completely dispute this as we can accurately determine the ages of many neanderthal remains and when you've got the skull of a male in his early 20's with fully formed and very pronounced brow ridge in direct contravention to the postulation of the other poster it becomes glaringly obvious that the entire notion of Neanderthals just being really old predeluvian HSS is bordering on preposterous.

For what it's worth, I do appreciate the link. I had not previously seen this article or any associated data from or relating to it so its certainly something to look at.

a reply to: peter vlar
There was no "quote mining" my friend. I posted the part of the link that directly referred to your post about the skull.
As for the rest of your post....
We can see even from 200 years ago that humans are maturing earlier now. A 10 year old today would be the equivalent of a 13 year old just a couple hundred years ago.
IF humans lived for an exceptional amount of time it would only beg that they matured a lot slower.
The bones they say are from a 20 year old could actually be from a much older individual.
We can look at the bones, we can do test but the truth is, we were not there and can not know for sure.
Quad
ETA: Brother if you took all of the MAYBES, COULD HAVES AND MIGHT HAVES out of most modern scientific theories you would be left with a lot of rubbish! Think about it.......

What about the wider pelvic bones we see in Neanderthal?
Did you know that human pelvic bones actually get wider as we age?

Researchers found that the width of the pelvis, the distance between the hip bones and the diameter of the hip bones all increased as people got older , even after people maxed out height-wise.

m.livescience.com...

HMM.......WHAT IF?.........
Quad

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: peter vlar
There was no "quote mining" my friend. I posted the part of the link that directly referred to your post about the skull.

And completely ignored the aspects which riddled the supposition with holes.


As for the rest of your post....
We can see even from 200 years ago that humans are maturing earlier now. A 10 year old today would be the equivalent of a 13 year old just a couple hundred years ago.

IF humans lived for an exceptional amount of time it would only beg that they matured a lot slower

At least you added the qualifier of "if".


The bones they say are from a 20 year old could actually be from a much older individual.
We can look at the bones, we can do test but the truth is, we were not there and can not know for sure.

Again with the "you weren't there so you can't know for sure bit". I don't want to brand you a Jesus freak or a YEC, I really don't. However you're doing a fine job of appropriating their jargon. The fact is that we have decoded the genome for both HSS and HNS and can determine quite well within a margin of error when and what changes have been made and how long ago the lineages diverged from one another. You are trying to equate bone growth which can be determined pretty well, with the onset of puberty. Two rather different topics. Just to add, the are also remains of juvenile HNS with the same degree of bone density as adults, its not a repeatable process occurring on humans living today.

ETA: Brother if you took all of the MAYBES, COULD HAVES AND MIGHT HAVES out of most modern scientific theories you would be left with a lot of rubbish! Think about it.......

Comparing an article to peer reviewed data seems like a prettttyyyy big stretch to me but to each their own.

Regarding your follow up post with the info about hip bones... The actual density of the bones in HSS doesn't increase in those instances, at least nowhere to the degree of bone density found thought the entire post cranial skeleton as well as the cranium. Apples and...grapes maybe? You're trying to use the argument that a couple of minor morphological features in humans living in the present is analogous to the entire bone structure of HNS. Tis doesn't even get not the fact that it is quite certain that HSS and HNS lived and worked side by side at the same sites for at least 50,000 years in the Levant as well other European sites. 50,000 years of side by side burials of two seperate species of humans make it difficult to deny the completely distinct morphologies they possessed. If nothing else, it sinks Noah's boat like drift wood and rips apart the concept of Neanderthals being pre-deluvian versions of modern humans.

a reply to: peter vlar
If you clean the abo e post up some I will gladly reply.

One part did stick out though and that was your mocking of the "you weren't there so you don't know bit"
The fact is that we can tell a lot from doing research but we will never know for sure.
Take the bone density of the Neanderthal. What conditions did they live in to make them adapt that way?
Oh, we can study it, analyze the data and make a very good GUESS but it still is not the same as being there. For every condition we find there could be 20 more that we know nothing about.
The only way science works is if you have an open mind about it. If you go into any type of research with a biased opinion your data will reflect it.
It is always better to ask......what if?......
Or else you're just a stick in the mud going no where.
Quad

originally posted by: peter vlar
Comparing an article to peer reviewed data seems like a prettttyyyy big stretch to me but to each their own.

Peer reviewed sources do not have a single OUNCE of credibility.

The peer review process is nothing more than a tool used to promote rampant fraud.

CircleOfDust
Here's some good info on your Religion of today called Science. From Michael Chrichton's book Next.

If we ever needed evidence that peer review is an empty ritual, this episode provides it. Many studies have shown that peer review does not improve the quality of scientific papers. Scientists themselves know it doesn‘t work. Yet the public still regards it as a sign of quality, and says, This paper was peer-reviewed,‘ or ;This paper was not peer-reviewed,‘ as if that meant something. It doesn‘t.

Regarding peer-reviews, more often than not, they’re a racket to keep new ideas out of circulation. No one has a bigger stake in the existing knowledge than tenured professors, and when new evidence comes forward that discredits the old opinions, the establishment fights hard against it. kenpruitt666.wordpress.com...

"...peer review is nothing more than a political arrangement for research workers, like a guild or union. It's goal is to keep control over their field, suppress the competition, and assure continued cash flow. It has nothing to do with science, the systematic search for truth, which must not be tainted by financial motives or tempted by personal gain." Exposing the Peer Review Process