Neanderthals
- Thread starter Meadyaon
- Start date
Sekhmet
First Post
As has been historically proven, the wealth of intelligence follows resources and trade. This is the primary reason for European dominance through the ages, and is very clearly evident in all of the major historical periods.
What you're arguing is that intelligence is a dynamic average, considering only the people of the time. This is just not true at all. While wisdom, the accumulation of experience and a wealth of anecdotal knowledge can be measured dynamically, intelligence is another beast altogether.
Intelligence is the ability to obtain new knowledge, retain old knowledge, using reason to ratify them, and to analyze it. This trait has steadily increased through the ages, as can be seen very clearly in technological advances, the arts, and sciences.
As an example, Indians are a stupid people. They have a wealth of wisdom, but lack intelligence in any notable amount. The same can be said for Aboriginals, the majority of native Africans (from central, southwest and northwest areas of the continent), many areas in the middle east, and many slavic countries.
By definition, Neanderthals must be stupid, just like our people will be stupid in 35,000 years.
Ashtagon
Adventurer
Specifically on the topic of physiology and cold-adaptation...
Neanderthal males averaged 166 cm tall (5' 5½") (females 154 cm, or 5' ½" tall), and weighing 77.6 kg (females 66.4 kg). That's a BMI of about 28, making them about as broad/bulky as a slightly overweight human.
They had a prominent brow ridge, and a brain chamber about 8% larger than modern man. The brain chamber isn't in itself a measure of intelligence however. That depends at least as much on how much the brain tissue is folded over on itself. There is no biological evidence that would conclusively show a degree of intelligence different from modern man.
Proportionately, Neanderthals do indeed have shorter limbs than H. sapiens (comparable with an overweight human), and at least within H. sapiens, this is seen as a sign of adaptation to a colder climate. On the other hand, they are comparable in robustness to H. heidelbergensis, their immediate ancestor over about 300,000 years. So the correct conclusion is that in terms of long-bone length (femur etc), no adaptation toward either warm or cold climate had taken place.
Their nasal structure is enlarged, which is a sign of adaptation toward a warmer climate (enlarged nasal structures act as a cooling system).
Overall, they were probably no better or worse off in cold climates than us. They had discovered the fine art of wearing clothes for added warmth, which is a far greater factor in determining ability to survive cold than any evolved biological adaptation.
Neanderthal males averaged 166 cm tall (5' 5½") (females 154 cm, or 5' ½" tall), and weighing 77.6 kg (females 66.4 kg). That's a BMI of about 28, making them about as broad/bulky as a slightly overweight human.
They had a prominent brow ridge, and a brain chamber about 8% larger than modern man. The brain chamber isn't in itself a measure of intelligence however. That depends at least as much on how much the brain tissue is folded over on itself. There is no biological evidence that would conclusively show a degree of intelligence different from modern man.
Proportionately, Neanderthals do indeed have shorter limbs than H. sapiens (comparable with an overweight human), and at least within H. sapiens, this is seen as a sign of adaptation to a colder climate. On the other hand, they are comparable in robustness to H. heidelbergensis, their immediate ancestor over about 300,000 years. So the correct conclusion is that in terms of long-bone length (femur etc), no adaptation toward either warm or cold climate had taken place.
Their nasal structure is enlarged, which is a sign of adaptation toward a warmer climate (enlarged nasal structures act as a cooling system).
Overall, they were probably no better or worse off in cold climates than us. They had discovered the fine art of wearing clothes for added warmth, which is a far greater factor in determining ability to survive cold than any evolved biological adaptation.
Last edited:
GameDaddy
Explorer
I'm a Neandertal hunter in Northern Europe 60,000 years ago. In my tribes camp today is a small group of guests, a squirrilly bunch of h. sapiens scouts who just happened to bring by their latest technological wonder to trade, the shortbow. They have been spending all morning with the old Grog our leader, showing him how the shortbow works, and urging him to try it out, no doubt looking to get some extra amber, and maybe some extra Baltic sea shells for this trade.
We all head out into the cold woods together to hunt, and scatter a line of Neaderthals and H.Sapiens working together at the mouth of one of our smaller V traps, and then yell brave war calls and make noise to drive the animals into the kill zone. About three hours later we finally close in on a corral of panicked animals. This just happens to include [Insert your choice of animal here] Large cattle (including bulls), Large Deer, A Mammoth, Several Large Wild Boars, A Cave Bear, A Wolf pack.
In desperation the Large cattle charge the humans/Neandertal line, and the h.sapiens get busy with their bows. They hit a few of the cattle, but the cattle are only really deterred and turned by the humans and the Neandertals brandishing and using their heavy spears.
The Large deer also charge the line to try to escape to freedom, and lo, a lucky hit by one of the h. sapiens brings a deer down. Once again though the big animals are turned back into the killing zone by the very visible and dangerous looking heavy spears.
The Mammoth charges, and even the Neandertals do not try to hold a line against such a large intimidating beast. They do manage to slash it up a bit though as it passes by them by to freedom. They'll follow the blood trail a bit later and maybe still make a Mammoth kill today. The puny arrows from the h. sapiens just make the Mammoth even more angry though, and in a fury he chases one of the squirrely tall men right up a tree, that he promptly knocks down, then proceeds to tusk and stomp the poor h.sapien until he's dead. Then he tromps off into the forest angrily looking for more people/Neanderthals/anything else remotely hostile looking to trample and kill.
The Boar are like the deer, they too are agile enough to get away from the heavy hunters, but only after they stubbornly charge the line and break through. Once they do get through, they turn around and come back, in a mean temper. The spears deter the boars and the Neandertals kill two. the h sapien bowmen are not so luckly, and one of them is nearly hamstrung when a wild boar sneaks up on him and tusks him up pretty good on his lower leg. Enough arrows though and the boar eventually flees and then collapses.
The Cave Bear goes where he wants, when he wants, and once he realizes it's just a bunch of Neandertals, and there is no other way out, he too turns to face the hunters to break through to freedom. The arrows are pretty ineffective, and with no lucky hits today piercing the bear, and just making the bear more angry instead. The bowmen have to keep their distance and even move off as the bear approaches them. If it were bows alone, the bear would have gotten clean away.
Last out the trap is the Wolf Pack, which comes at the hunters from several different directions at once. Yes, the h. sapiens kill a couple wolves, but two more are injured because they didn't happen to have a heavy spear to force the extra charging wolves to turn away at the last minute to avoid being impaled. Several of the Wolves manage to escape. They almost always do, even when everyone is using spears.
You see...? The animals don't know the bows are better weapons.
The Neandertals aren't going to hunt on the run, as they can't outrun the animals. Today Old Grog decides to decline on trading for shortbows after this enlightening demonstration.
There is a reason the heavy spear and shield was the weapon of choice even against the entire army of Xerxes for the mighty Spartans as late as 480 B.C. The spear is the best close range weapon against a large foe, it's large blade will deal tremendous amounts of damage cutting or crushing arteries and dealing shock damage to bones and internal organs. The heavy haft can be used to block or deflect incoming attacks, and they can be manufactured quickly unlike precision arrows.
A spear is equally useful against humans and scares animals more often than a bow does. The Spartans in 480 didn't rely on bows to win battles, they thought bowmen were wusses, and routinely had them bunched with the peltasts, and foreign auxilliaries. Even then, 34,500 years after the last true Neanderthal had kicked the bucket.
Bows did come into their own. That was a few hundred years later though, when humans began hunting other humans more often for sport, and with their effective use being in bringing down clouds of arrows onto a target area.
50,000 years, minimum!
New Evidence Puts Man In North America 50,000 Years Ago
I remember when no one would admit to Pre-Clovis sites at all, and also know of several other finds dating to the times I mentioned earlier, being specifically in the Chile region of South America, but as my office is a mess atm and I can't seem to find the bulk of my archaeology mags here.
I would agree, in the (Holocene) time after the big game was hunted out. When there was food walking around everywhere, no one had to go laboriously dig into the earth and plant, and irrigate. The Eskimos are (or were until very recently) pure meat eaters.
There's definitely some short-term benefits for being able to write. Isn't what we have really done though, is speed the destruction of the environment thereby hastening the time until we reach resource depeletion and collapse?
I'd be interested in a cite that conclusively showed that neanderthals did not also practice war, fratricide, and cannibalism. I've personally witnessed fratricide in apes in the wild in Africa, so it isn't unique to humanity. Yeah, apes are pretty inhumane
Well, they are definitely related to us, all I came across doing a bit of further research was multiple archaeology sites providing definite proof Neandertals were cannibals as well. The probably found h. sapiens quite soft and tasty as well, and packed with extra vitamins all the Mediterranean fruits provided. Perhaps the real reason h. sapiens hunted them out, eh?
Cannibalism links France:
Scientific Methods: WERE NEANDERTHALS CANNIBALS?
Neanderthal Cannibalism at Moula-Guercy, Ardèche, France
In Spain:
Neanderthals Were Cannibals, Study Confirms | LiveScience
They ate Red Deer in Southern France
Faunal Exploitation during the Middle Palaeolithic in south-eastern France and north-western Italy - Valensi - 2004 - International Journal of Osteoarchaeology - Wiley Online Library
Neanderthal build and decorated homes with Mammoth bones (Fred Flintstone, Here's looking at you!:
Neanderthals built homes with mammoth bones - Telegraph
in the Ukraine:
Oldest known Neanderthal house found in Ukraine – made from woolly mammoth bones | ouno
Neanderthals made mammoth Jerky:
Neanderthals Made Mammoth Jerky: Discovery News
Neanderthal Mammoth hunting in the Black Forest:
http://www.eva.mpg.de/evolution/staff/niven/pdf/Conard-Niven-Elefanti-2001.pdf
Neanderthal Mammoth hunting in New Jersey:
Stone Pages Archaeo News: Neanderthal mammoth hunters in Jersey?
Immunities and Vulnerabilities introduced by Neanderthals:
The downside of sex with Neanderthals | Science | guardian.co.uk
Last edited:
GameDaddy
Explorer
If that is the case, all the tech developments would have occurred in the Middle East then. Early on this was true, but later Europe eclipsed the middle easter traders by innovating faster. I'd say war and fighting in Europe (as well as the fight over the wealth in the middle east) accelerated the process more than economic trade did.
If we are even here in 35,000 years. Odds are not looking good atm.
Last edited:
GameDaddy
Explorer
Well, there seems to be some general consensus that they fared much better than h. sapiens in cold weather climates as a general rule, Wooly Mammoth furs does look like it could keep one very warm.
The Nasal structure might have been an earlier adaptation, when they were still in warmer climates 140,000 yrs ago?
Or did they have (and use) a better sense of smell?
Ashtagon
Adventurer
They may have had a better or worse sense of smell. We don't really know. What we do know is that the nasal bone structures show that they must have had wide, flared nostrils. That says nothing about sense of smell either way. But it says something very specific about temperature adaptation.
I'll agree that their body shape makes them marginally better at handling cold weather. But given that they had clothing, I'd say that these clothes were a far bigger factor in determining ability to tolerate cold than any physical variation among hominids. Their clothing technology (such as it was) had reached a state where it was a massively bigger factor in enabling them to withstand cold weather compared to the marginal benefit their more robust body shape provided.
They did thrive in Europe (and the middle east). This is more likely to be because they were the top predator in those areas, and had less competition for position of top predator in those areas compared to other regions.
Last edited:
Sekhmet
First Post
Think about it for a little longer. When intellectual thought in Europe began eclipsing the Middle East, it was during the first few Crusades. Looting in the Middle East brought wealth and trade to Europe by way of Constantinople and Rome.
Once again, intelligence and innovation follow fortune and trade.
Ashtagon
Adventurer
Saying that Neanderthals were more creative than Cro-Magnons because they made cave art first is like saying that sabre-tooth tigers were bigger than modern elephants because sabre-tooth tigers were big first.
The cave paintings are proof of a certain level of creativity. But they don't prove than X was more than Y; merely that both X and Y were bigger than Z.
Ashtagon
Adventurer
Were any human remains discovered at the site? If this really is correct, it would pre-date any physical land connection, which would imply an advanced ship-building culture thousands of years ago.
