Talk:Neanderthal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for Neanderthal: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Add section on Neanderthal behavior
  • Add pictures of tools used by Neanderthals
  • Expand section on Neanderthal language, fix issues of POV and tone
  • Add section on the fate of the Neanderthals
  • Expand section on fate of Neanderthals
Peer review Neanderthal has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is part of WikiProject Primates, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use primate resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Article assessment An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about Extinct mammals during the week starting 27 February 2006.

Contents

[edit] second and third paragraphs --- please move somewhere else

these two paragraphs are imcomprehensible to the average person. they need to be put in a subsection and a descriptive title added so that , at least, we can understand what it is about. and of course, a rewrite in plain english would help.

[edit] Bob Fink

What is all this Bob Fink -- Neanderthal Flute stuff? I really think this guy is a crackpot and should be removed from the article; http://www.greenwych.ca/cm-ad.htm is one good example of his website that Wiki's linking to, as well as other articles including "Contradictions in the Bible -- a primer for Creationists," "History of the so-called 'surprise' bombing of Pearl Harbor," and something about a program that writes music.

It would be nice if you put your signature on your posts! --Rdos 18:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neanderthal burial

Before making the claim that "Neanderthal burial is not proven," you need to take a careful look at the most recent scholarly discussions on this topic (post-Sommer). In particular, d'Errico et al. (2003) take a multidisciplinary approach and review many arguments, re-studies, experiments and a broad range of evidence in detail, bringing the topic up to date:

d'Errico, F.; Henshilwood, C; Lawson, G; et al. Anchaeological evidence for the emergence of language, symbolism and music -- an alternative multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of World Prehistory, 17(1):1-70 March 2003.

Excerpts:

"We believe that there is enough evidence to suggest a well organized and very ancient funerary tradition among Near Eastern and European Neandertals." (page 25)

"In the light of recent evidence, we ... conclude that Neandertals did practice intentional burial, with the corollary that Neandertals may not have buried their dead following the same traditions as AMH [anatomically modern humans]. However, we propose that the basic purpose behind the act was the same -- namely that of interment with symbolic intent." --~~ Even Ian Tattersall believes the Neandertals buried their dead; his "guess" is that they didn't have religion. However, the above article with updated analyses demonstrates convincingly that Neandertals had a symbolic life, and buried their dead with symbolic intent (no reason why they wouldn't be animists).

--> The thing that's contested is not whether they *buried* their dead, but whether they did so *symbolically.* Symbolism is the diagnostic for AMH [anatomically modern humans] and the debate revolves around whether or not Neanderthals used symbols or thought and acted symbolically. That's the point. The most recent research points out the symbolic aspects of Neandertal life and is supported by numerous finds discussed in the article. Neanderthals were indeed symbolizing humans just like AMH, but they had different cultures.

-- Tanat 21:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

GreenFerry, how do you know that the AMH that were contemporary with Neanderthals had symbolism (whatever that is)? It is not valid to presume that just because they had the same anatomical build as we have today, they also had exactly the same behavior and abilities. --Rdos 08:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burial

My reading suggests that intentional Neanderthal burial is not proven. I propose to replace the existing paragraph with something like this:

Over a dozen Neanderthal burials have been recorded in France and west Asia, although there is much contention about the role of non-cultural site-formation processes at these sites (Gargett 1989, 1999). If Neanderthals did intentially bury their dead, the absence of convincing grave goods in the burials, and symbolic artefacts generally, indicates that ceremonial and symbolic behaviour was not widespread (Chase and Dibble 1987, Hayden 1993). The interpretation of the Shandiar IV burials as including flowers, and therefore being a form of ritual burial (Ralph Solecki 1975), has been questioned (Sommer 1999). A number of sites have inscribed, perforated or worked bone pieces associated with Neanderthals although there is much ambiguity concerning the role of intentionality and symbolism in their production (Villa and d'Errico 2001).

At the moment I can't get to Sommer (1999) to check it out, but I can offer these refs:

Chase, P.G. & H.L. Dibble, 1987. Middle Palaeolithic symbolism: a review of current evidence and interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6, 263–96.

Gargett, R.H., 1989. Grave shortcomings: the evidence for Neanderthal burial. Current Anthropology 30, 157–90.

Gargett, R.H., 1999. Middle Palaeolithic burial is not a dead issue: the view from Qafzeh, Saint-Césaire, Kebara, Amud, and Dederiyeh. Journal of Human Evolution 37, 27–90.

Hayden, B., 1993. The cultural capacities of Neanderthals: a review and re-evaluation. Journal of Human Evolution 24, 113–46.

Villa, P. & F. d’Errico, 2001. Bone and ivory points in the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of Europe. Journal of Human Evolution 41, 69–112.

How about it? Comtebenoit 16:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is AMH burial proven 35kya? --Rdos 08:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In a January 1996 National Geographic article the spelling Neandertal (without the h) is used. I've encountered this spelling a number of times. Apparently the first fossil remains were found in 1856 in the Neanderthal when the English equivalent for valley was still written as Thal in German. In 1904 the German spelling was changed and Thal became Tal. How should Neanderthal/tal be written? Is there a preferred spelling or are they each other's equal. In any case, shouldn't there be a note in the article pointing out that there are two alternative spellings? Guy 02:08 Aug 13, 2002 (PDT)

It appears (per some Google searches) that "Neanderthal" is predominantly used over "Neandertal" on English language sites (same for neanderthalensis vs. neandertalensis). So, the article is in the right place. I'll put in some explanatory text. Jeronimo

BTW, this page should be better of at "Neanderthal Man", or similar, since Neanderthal (or rather, Neandertal) is of course the valley which gave the man its name... Jeronimo

That seems logical to me. Guy 02:25 Aug 13, 2002 (PDT)
No in English that would be the Neander Valley, not Neandertal. Rmhermen 07:14 Aug 13, 2002 (PDT)
OK, granted. But the question remains what would be the correct way to denote the species. Does Neanderthal imply without a doubt that we're talking about the species, or does it need to be followed by Man? Guy 12:01 Aug 13, 2002 (PDT)
Speaking as a layman, "Neanderthal Man" sounds very quaint and 19th-century, and I would never expect to use or encounter it in modern prose. "Neanderthal" is the one and only way I would refer to the hominid, and the one and only meaning I would have for the word. --Brion 09:35 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)
I moved the article to Homo neanderthalensis to end the confusion and to bring it in line with Homo sapiens and the other homo (genus). This page now is a disamb. page. MH 21:57, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd love to see some literature listed, for instance concerning the red hair and freckles in the last paras. Great article otherwise! -- OlofE

My latest update expanding on my earlier paragraph about Jared Diamond's views may appear a little tendentious. I abstained from going into greater detail in my first update, but have been prompted to make this argument explicit rather than implicit by the fact that the potentially misleading analogy was repeated without caveat on a recent BBC Horizon documentary. Note that I say can be misleading in an attempt to maintain NPOV. -- Alan Peakall 18:40 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Alan, I agree with you. Pulitzer prize aside, Diamond has done no research on early H. sapiens and is in no way an expert on Neandertals or Cro-Magnon; I really think his views should have a minor place in this article. Slrubenstein

Ortolan, I don't understand your deletion. Why did you say that was "made up"? Tannin

I didn't say anything that was made up. What I deleted was made up, however:
Neanderthal is a village in Germany. In 1856, fossils of "Neanderthal man" were found there.

It had been inserted as the first sentence. The village is not important, it is the valley that is important. The rest of my changes were just getting the rest of the information straight. Ortolan88 Ps and it didn't belong in the first paragraph all by itself. Neanderthals were found all over that end of Europe. PPS That is, both the village and the "race" were named after the valley. Ortolan88

No, there is no village called "Neandert(h)al" around here. See [1] --Walter, 80.132.195.198 21:48 29 May 2003 (UTC)

What's the meaning of Neander? It's Greek, isn't it, for Neumann? Why do the Germans have a place with a Greek name? -- Zoe

Great question! That is, is it strangely ironic that a "new form of man" that was "an old form of man" should have been found in a place whose name means "new man" in the old language? On the other hand, the Greeks got around, there are lots of places with Greek names all around the world. Ortolan88
Many German names are latinised from Germanic forms, sometimes just with a "-us" suffix, sometimes in the form of a translation. Greek forms seem to be much less usual, but the name "Neander" is not totally uncommon. Kosebamse 19:15 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

The name derives from the composer Joachim Neander in the 17th century. His family had the name "Neumann" before, but did rename itself to greek "Neander". A (sadly only german) biography can be found at [2]. He then gave his name to the valley. I don't know if there is really a village - I visited the museum once and it had only a few houses around there. I will try to incorporate that into the article later. andy 16:36 15 May 2003 (UTC)

They liked to do that in the Humanistic period, cf. Melanchthon (Schwarzterd) and Agricola (Bauer) --Yak 11:38, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Can someone who knows the topic incorporate this news item into this article? [3] Kingturtle 16:14 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure there is a need -- the article already asserts that modern humans are most likely not descended from Neanderthals. Slrubenstein

I believe the Bilzingsleben findings should be included. recently it became known that N. used tree tar (german: Birkenpech) as glue and some oak substance to treat furs and leather (Gerbstoff).

but Bilzingsleben is homo erectus! The tar is from Königsaue --Yak 11:38, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] old article factual complaints

This is pretty bad, or should I say, it would be good if it were still 1970. But science had come a long way since, and this page is misleading at best, downright incorrect at worst.

Furthermore, it concentrates almost entirely on the chimera (yes, that's a pun) of human-Neandertal interbreeding, while saying next to nothing about Neandertals. -- orthogonal 10:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should fix it. Quadell (talk) 15:28, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
I've been reading up on the matter so as to do so. ;) -- orthogonal 15:34, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Professional opinions are divided as to whether Neanderthals should be Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Perhaps this article should be placed at Neanderthal in the meantime. -- Mpt 09:28, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've added information regarding this naming dispute to the article's page in the notes section, with a reference to it in the first line. It should justify making this article "undisputed", no? --69.158.35.238 06:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If I'm reading the above correctly, and from looking at the article, the dispute isn't just the name, it's the science mentioned in the article being out of date. DreamGuy 07:08, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling: Neanderthal vs Neandertal

I've moved it to Neandertal as a compromise. The majority of American English usage, I think, is "Neanderthal", but that is a disambiguation page right now. It might need to become a semi-disambiguation page (one with this content there and a link to otheruses/Neanderthal (disambiguation) at the top). --Joy [shallot] 14:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd recommend that this article be moved to Neanderthal (with Neandertal as a forward). I'm not sure there needs to be a disambiguation page as the only other article linked to on that page is Neanderthal, Germany, which can be a prominent link at the beginning of this article (so that someone looking for that location and ends up here -- or rather at the page spelled correctly -- would have a link to what they really want right away anyway). And, yes, I realize a few places like to spell the name Neandertal so people in English pronounce it correctly, but to me that would be like arbitrarily deciding that Porsche the car should be spelled Porsha so English people pronounce it the same way the Germans do. DreamGuy 00:23, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, in German, it's "Neandertal". "Neanderthal" is an old spelling not used now. --Hob Gadling 14:47, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
That is not the case, and I have pictures to show for it (but Deutche Bahn should be good enough, the S28 line pass through Neanderthal just before Mettmann: http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/zuginfo.exe/en/435780/234851/678328/193904/80). Neanderthal was renamed to Neandertal with German spelling changes, but while I believe the valley itself remains spelled Neandertal the site has reverted to Neanderthal, no doubt for touristic reasons. While all of "Neanderthal man", "Neandertal man", "Neander Valley man" thus can be called correct I would say that "Neanderthal" is the most proper now. As science is rather conservative in nature the Neandertal variant never really caught on anyway.
(To the comments below: Scientific names do follow worldly name changes, they just need longer time, and while I would prefer a German pronouciation both of "Neander" and "tal" the English "th" variant is likely to remain. Dropping the vestigial "h" can hardly be called a "fashion" or an "invention". Current English isn't Shakespearian either.)

Neanderthal. The old spelling "Neanderthal" continues to be reflected in neanderthalensis, because scientific names don't follow the vagaries of fashion. The modern spelling of the place in German is "Neandertal." An attempt to look authoritative is a little pretension that runs consistently through Wikipedia. Even a Google search (set Preference to "English" of course) is definitively 254000 to 32000. English-language textbooks follow ordinary usage. No one thought to consult these two weathervanes. "Neandertal" is doubtless pronounced by the newly-educated in "correct" German fashion, like saying "Paree" when you mean "Paris." "Like a hick in a suit" they used to say... --Wetman 21:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neanderthal is the more common name around the world and the one closest to the scientific name. Innovations in modern German language spelling should not bias the name of these well-known prehistoric humans.--Pharos 01:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just like 'connoisseur' is the correct English spelling for what's now connaisseur in French, the correct English spelling for Neanderthals ought to be 'Neanderthal'. I don't see why there's any debate about Neanderthals when there's none about connoisseurs. It also is the spelling that most closely reflects the predominant English pronunciation (attempts to pronounce it in the German manner don't even work in English; there's no equivalent of the 'ea' sound of German for instance---not to mention the sound of the R). The word is an English word, as neanderthalensis is a Latin word, and English and Latin words don't need to keep up to date with German ones. 202.147.117.39 03:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In North America, and I assume many english speaking nations, "Neanderthal" is by far the most common usage. I didn't even know there was an alternate way to pronounce it, and every single human being I have met has used "Neanderthal" (with the TH sound like thin), and I only found out that a pronunciation dispute existed when I read some literature on the subject.

I don't know how they say it Germany or France or other non-english european nations, but Neaderthal is very, very far from being an obsolete spelling and pronunciation of the word. To consider it so would be foolish. I would assume that both versions are used throughout the planet, and to spark a debate over such a subject is immensly unintelligble. Both words are correct, and if one falls into disuse then so be it. Specusci 16:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other issues

all's i know is what my anthro prof told me, is that neanderthals were just people with the rickets 'cause they had too much melanin for their latitude. 128.119.74.149 17:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NEW COMMENT: I can find nothing to complain about in this article except they did NOT have any problem with the climate at the end of the Ice Age because they were long dead before then. I can't imagine where this idea comes from. Regarding comment above, the rickets and melenin ideas are simply silly. There is zero evidence for either. Note too, that such pigmentation is not always tied to latitude. The above comment is too vague to be left unattended. SA
That rickets thing is a false rumor. It was started by Rudolf Virchow when the first such fossil was found, was quickly disproved, but survives to this day only thanks to creationists who still spread it. --Hob Gadling 14:47, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to correct some of the factually inaccurate so we can lose the factually inaccurate templates. Removed statements about Neanderthals being unable to adapt to warm climates and that they lived only in the "Ice Age". Removed a statement that their larger brain size should be "negated". Added some detail regarding the disovery of the type specimen. I plan on adding more detail to the rest of the article. The section on interaction with Cro-Magnons is interesting, but highly spurious and not referenced. Perhaps this could be moved to a separate article. --JPotter 05:25, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neandertal-human hybrid

Found (www . rdos . net/eng/asperger.htm), which has lots of info, and most important, references. IANAA (I Am Not An Anthropologist), so it looks pretty convincing to me. :) Bogdan | Talk 14:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article mentioned "hybridization studies" as a basis for thinking that there was hybridization between Neanderthals and modern humans. "hybridization studies", however. address similarities of DNA sequence, not potential hybridization in the sense of interbreeding. The article (www . rdos . net/eng/asperger.htm) misinterprets at least one of its references regarding this point. I modified the sentence to refer to fossil evidence instead, and to weaken the inference to reflect the controversial nature of the conclusion. KED 18:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for grammar cleanup

Looking for someone to copyedit this article.

Thanks! --JPotter 16:37, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I did a copyedit earlier today, a few rephrasings and grammatical changes. Hope it looks OK. Worldtraveller 23:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To-do list for Neanderthal: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Add section on Neanderthal behavior
  • Add pictures of tools used by Neanderthals
  • Expand section on Neanderthal language, fix issues of POV and tone
  • Add section on the fate of the Neanderthals
  • Expand section on fate of Neanderthals

)

[edit] response to request for review: an enormous omission

The questions most people find most fascinating are not even addressed here. Were Neanderthals genetically compatible with modern humans and did they become merged y mating into early European populations or were they wiped out? The missing data comes from the genetic studies. The evidence in the article is twenty years out of date. alteripse 13:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The genetic studies, while they should be mentioned, are highly spurious. For example, only 300bp of Neanderthal DNA have been analyzed. It can hardly be said that the study was conclusive of anything. What exactly is 20 years out of date? JPotter

I thought that I have seen several reports over the years of DNA extraction and testing-- more than 300bp. If that is all that has been reclaimed then I agree it isn't much. This is a a topic that once interested me, but I haven't kept up with. Three books were published in the late 80s and mid-90s on this topic and I read all of them. One of the main points of Lewin's Bones of Contention if I recall correctly is how much "storytelling" speculation based on the meager shreds of physical evidence had been passed off as science (phys anthrop) over the previous century, telling us far more about the storytellers over the years than the Neanderthals. Eric Trinkaus and Pat Shipman also wrote a book in the early 90s, as did Shreeve, on the Neandertals (TALS in these books). I thought I have seen several articles on DNA testing since the early 90s-- perhaps "20 years out of date" was an overly harsh accusation, but what we have sounds like it could have been written in the 1980s. However, don't we have a real-fer-shure physical anthropologist in our midst? I bet user:slrubenstein knows 10 times more than me about this-- heck maybe you do too. Could we at least have an overview of the disappointments because the DNA testing seemed to hold so much promise in the early 1990s? I didn't mean to offend the authors of this interesting articles- I just don't have immediate access to the published stuff. alteripse 05:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No offense was taken, just looking to improve the article. Your sentiments are welcomed and the areas you mentioned definitely need to be added to the article. JPotter 20:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

OK, guys here's a gift: [4] It's a list of each single sigificant discovery and issue about Neanderthals worth mentioning. Go ahead and make this a featured article. Beg SLR to work on this instead of arguing with the ignorant about religion and race. alteripse 23:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

The recent edits border on personal research and are not cited. Let's try to keep in Wikipedia guidelines JPotter

[edit] Fossil?

The article lists conservation status as fossil, and describes found remains as such. But then later it says mitochondrial DNA studies have been performed. Surely if the remains are truely fossils they'd be mineralized (per the fossil article) and thus there's no DNA to be had. So shouldn't the conservation status should be prehistoric, and the found bones be described as "remains" rather than "fossils"? If I've gotten the wrong idea (i.e. that the mitochondirial DNA studies are clever inferences from H.sapiens mitochondrial DNA instead of Neanderthal's) then the article should make that clear. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To quote the fossil article, "Fossils are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms." (italics mine, parentheticals removed for clarity). And to paraphrase my Dad, who has been a fossil nut since before I met him, fossils have not necessarily had their original materials replaced. For example, he gave me a whale vertabra which is still the original object, but still is a fossil. human 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H. sapiens neanderthalensis

I take issue with this: "however, recent evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies indicates that Neanderthals were not a subspecies of Homo sapiens." Check NCBI.--Dustin Asby 00:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

But that is the implication of the mitochondrial research, and it's convinced most researchers. Just because something is on a U.S. government website doesn't make it true.--Pharos 01:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
This is also how my Bio. Ant. class was taught. Can I get a reference to the contrary?--Dustin Asby 11:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Anthropology and primatology are often in disagreement about taxonomy. NCBI does not claim to be an authority on taxonomy and strongly suggests that folks look elsewhere for classification information. Quoting them: "The NCBI taxonomy database is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification - please consult the relevant scientific literature for the most reliable information." They are simply using a taxonomic tree to display their information, because it's simply the most logical method. They've had to make decisions as they've added links, but they do not revise heir decisions from time to time. Just because they've decided to list the Neanderthal information as H. s. neanderthalensis, doesn't mean that Neanderthals are a subspecies of H. sapiens. It only means that at the time, it was the placement they chose. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Using the comparative Google search method (as I will call it) I discovered that "Homo neanderthalensis" is ~1.6 times more common that "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis." This is without even involving abbreviated forms (which I'm certain favour H. neanderthalensis). So, following NCBI's advice (and common sense) yeilds me incorrect. I'm not sure why I didn't try this before. I suppose I assumed some of the authors would have some references on tap.--Dustin Asby 14:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Physical Anthropologists agree on very little. [5] [6] --JPotter 13:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I think the claim that a few hundreds of bases of mtDNA could settle the debate of whether Neanderthals were a species or sub-species is outrageous. First, mtDNA has absolutely nothing to do with species or sub-species status. Second, even if the mtDNA is correct, and Neanderthals has a divergence of 0.5 - 1 My, this doesn't prove their species-status either. Many other species that are interfertile have far more *generations* of divergence. For instance, look at wolves. There is a 1 My divergence, but all species are interfertile. 1My in wolf also is several times longer in humans. --Rdos 09:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Italic text"Many other species that are interfertile have far more *generations* of divergence."Italic text Different species are by definition NOT interfertile, thus interfertile animals belong to the same species. This is definitely not the current definition used in biology today - for obvious reasons like continium interfertility and the like. WilyD 13:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I took an archaeology class at the University of Washington in winter of 2000. My instructor was very adamant that the species be refered to Homo sapien sapien and Homo sapien neanderthalensis, NOT Homo sapien and Homo neanderthalensis, respectively. I do not remember what her reasons were exactly. I think it might have been Professor Close, if anyone who might want to go ask/interview her. I don't live in Seattle anymore... --Trakon 08:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen it argued both ways but I don't think wikipedia should just make a decision like that. Since it is in question the infobox should also point out it could be either and then link to a section in the article that discusses this issue. In fact, I am going to go make that change right now if I can figure it out!--DannyBoy7783 05:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, couldn't figure it out. I didn't want to mess with the infobox too much. A note on the subspecies should be mention in the infobox. The "synonym" I don't think is sufficient.--DannyBoy7783 05:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Almas

Does anyone else believe that it's a bit of a stretch to include a link to Almas in a Neanderthal article? --Grmagne 16:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd be ok with the link being removed. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rufosity

An anonymous added "rufosity" (having red hair) as a physical trait. I suspect that this is speculation. Does anyone have sources for this? --Chl 15:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted it. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Rosalind Harding has done research on this. [7] --Rdos 08:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Fascinating. I'll try to add this back as a possible characteristic, noting that the possibility of H. sapiens and Neanderthal interbreeding is still controversial. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Assuming the age of the gene is correct, a neanderthal origin would still be just one possible explanation. Another one would be that red hair originated in an area where H. s. lived 50,000 years ago, but where red hair does not occur today. --Chl 19:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Chl. It is sheer speculation to associate a 50,000 year old gene with Neanderthals. In any case, more recent research indicates that the MC1R gene, the cause of red hair, may be only 20,000 years old. -- Jbull 19:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acheulian and Mousterian

"The Mousterian tools represented a technological leap from the previous Acheulian, “core”, hard hammer percussion tool technology, where the focus was on a core stone and chipping flakes off it, using another stone, to produce a tool."

This implies that during the Lower Paleolithic there were no flaked tools! It doesn't acknowledge that there was more to the Lower Paleolithic than Acheulian, and more to the Acheulian than handaxes. It also neglects to mention that there are instances of prepred core technology in the Lower Paleolithic (such as Levallois and Kombewa), that there are core tools in the Middle Paleolithic, and that the Mousterian is also associated with Homo Sapiens in some places. Lastly, I would object that it gives a false impression of "progress" where it exists only in the minds of the observers.

I would rewrite the whole paragraph like this: "The characteristic style of stone tools in the Middle Paleolithic is called the Mousterian Culture, after a prominent archaeological site where the tools were first found. The Mousterian culture is typified by the wide use of Levallois technology. Mousterian tools involved soft hammer percussion – the use of bones, antlers, wood – which were used to focus on flakes of stone, rather than the core stone."

Yahewe 17:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Make sure you include the proper links. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope this is good. I also changed the first paragraph a bit, from "The Neanderthal or Neandertal was a species of Homo (Homo neanderthalensis) that inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia from about 230,000 to 29,000 years ago, during the Middle and Lower Paleolithic period of the Pleistocene epoch" to "The Neanderthal or Neandertal was a species of Homo (Homo neanderthalensis) that inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia from about 230,000 to 29,000 years ago, during the Middle Palaeolithic period". I did that because Neanderthals, almost by definition, did not exist in the Lower Paleolithic, and because the Paleolithic is not a part of the Pleistocene - the Paleolithic is an archaeological period, while the Pleistocene is a geological one. Yahewe 11:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Well done. There's no need to reproduce the changes here, though. Anyone can see what you did by clicking on the "history" tab for the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation

Since the article includes the "t" or "th", shouldn't it also mention if its "nee ander" or "nay ander" (the correct way)? Trekphiler 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speciesism?

I'm a bit troubled by the use of "humans" in oppo to Neanderthal. While they weren't H.sap., I'd say they belong to our family tree, & thus were as human as us. Correction? Trekphiler 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Neanderthal are a species of human. The reason why we refer to homo sapiens are simply "human" is because we are the only surviving species from that genus.
Please sign your "talk" edits with four ~'s. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a matter of perspective. Some see only H. sapiens as humans, and the other Homo species as proto-humans. Others see all of the Homo genus as the close human family, with the other hominins as proto- and near-humans. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Scientifically there is no perspective about it. There is no species, "human". That's a genus. Homo Sapiens are a species of human. The last surviving species. In the scientific community there is no debate about this. The debate only exists in individuals who also believe that humans are not apes, or animals for that matter. Such opinions have no relevance here. For proof, look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29
"The word homo is Latin for "man", in the original sense of "human being". The word "human" itself is from Latin humanus, an adjective cognate to homo"Lengis 05:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] End of Neanderthals

I think that there is clearly a missing section talking about what happened to the Neanderthals. Climate change? Disease? Genocide? I really think that this article should explore this. Derekt75 17:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Disease seems the most likely possibility, but more research should be done to help create a category on this.

Wikipedia is not a place to posit various theories of your own. Please include source material citations when posting theories. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess I didn't consider myself to be positing various theories of my own, so much as recalling various theories that I had read. Surely you don't know the source of everything you know about Neanderthals. As a new user, the Wikipedia guidelines said to "Be Bold", under the theory that subsequent readers would improve. It says a revert is used primarily for fighting vandalism. Anyway, I didn't want to take the time to look up the various theories, and figured other people who had this stuff more on the tips of their fingers could flesh out some of the theories proposed. After getting reverted, I decided to do some research.
climate change: [8]
competition with Homo Sapiens: [9]
disease: [10], [11], DK book "Cousins" ISBN: 0789471558
genocide by Homo Sapiens: easy to reach hypothesis, but considered unlikely by most sources. [12]
I still think something needs to be written about their demise. google '"What happened to" neanderthals', and you get 91,000 hits. I'm sorry that my contributions are inadequate for the regular page, but maybe by writing in the talk page, somebody can add something. Derekt75 23:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Derek. He was trying to spur attention towards improving the article which you tried to shoot down. I believe that's counter-productive, and unhelpful. Lengis 05:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
A short section on the demise of Neanderthals is needed, but ideally it should be linked to a new article on the subject, perhaps entitled Neanderthal extinction. The apparently hybrid morphology of fossils from Portugal to Israel present many issues that could be reviewed, along with the mDNA controversy, etc. Ombudsman 06:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The most plausible reason why Neanderthals disappeared is that their genes got introgressed into Hss and hybrid vigor lead to Hn disappearing as a pure species. This view is currently the most plausible given new genetic research in this area. --Rdos 06:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the current view is that it was highly unlikely that Hn contributed any genetics to Hss. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
No, Rdos, the vast majority of experts in the field accept that Neanderthals, though fully human, were a distinct species of human (Homo neanderthalensis) from H. sapiens. As such they were probably unable to interbreed. At most, sapien-neanderthal hybrids were sterile like mules. I don't know what sources cite such "new genetic research" and why you don't cite them, but the general trend is increasing evidence for a single origin of Homo sapiens in Africa nearly 200,000 years ago, with the origin of modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) between 90,000 and 130,000 years ago in sub-Saharan East Africa. The split between the ancestors of sapiens and neanderthals probably occured sometime between 300,000 and 600,000 years ago, according to numerous sources. In either case, the only staunch defenders of the multiregional hypothesis are scientific racists.
No, this is an outdated view. There are many genes that are not compatible with OoA. One single gene will disprove it, but now we have many of them. It is a silly assumption that more mtDNA sequences would decrease the likelyhood of Hn interbreeding. --Rdos 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Be cautious about Rdos' "sources" as he/she is known to use papers with a racist agenda. The main ulterior motive for resistance to the out-of-Africa is racism. Some eurocentric anthropologists are unprepared to accept the African origin of the species homo sapiens (living humans). Not to say that all scientists who think Neanderthals contributed genes to H. sapiens sapiens populations are racist, as this is not the case. Some have a genuine skepticism to the belief that the species gap was unbridgeable.
From what I had read, it was possible that a Hn gene here or there made it into the Hss genome, but that this was the exception, not the rule. I would think common genes would merely prove that interbreeding happened, not that an entire civilization was assimiliated into a different one. For instance, the Tanio page talks about their end due to disease and genocide when Columbus landed in the New World. Even though their genes persist in the human genome, I wouldn't think we'd answer the question "What happened to the Tanio?" by saying that the Tanio genes introgressed into the populations of nearby islands and into their conquerers. From what I've seen, the answer to the Neanderthal question would be similar. Most of the Hn population was decimated by something, but some survived and assimilated. How many survived seems unknown from what I've read. What caused the population decimation also seems unknown. Derekt75 17:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
We have to keep in mind that the "decimation" didn't occur in centuries or even a millenia, but this took possibly as much as 10,000 years. If we include the entire timespan from "African exodus" 80,000 years ago (according to some sources), it took 50,000 years. If we use the entry into northern Eurasia, possible at 50,000 years, it still took 20,000 years. Such slow assimiliations never happened in simple conquer scenarios. --Rdos 05:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I just read in March '06 National Geographic that the evidence said that Hss and Hn interbred extremely rarely, if at all. Derekt75 01:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding a section about this. My suggestion is to limit the discussion to the most prominant ideas, with references to outside sources for people who wish to learn more. I think it would be easy to get bogged down in the evidence for and against each theory, so we should be careful about remaining (relatively) brief and neutral. Ladlergo 21:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never edited a page before, so i just thought i would add a suggestion for other people to look into. At the moment I am studying for my final exam in cognitive evolution, where it is suggested that it may have been the cognitive differences between neanderthalensis and sapiens that could have lead to extinction. one paper on the cognitive differences is 'Cognitive differences in Neanderthal and Upper Palaeolithic populations: evolution of executive function. John Leach - University of Lancaster. Hope that helps

This debate should end with the new study of DNA linkage of modern humans, and Allan Templeton's paper, however, I have a feeling it won't. I've made changes in the section to accomdate for the new findings. --Rdos 11:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neanderthal Picture

That picture on the right seems to contradict some of the descriptions of what a Neanderthal is supposed to look like. In particular the lack of a chin, the picture shows him having a chin. A better, more acurate picture should be put in place.

A chin is different from a jawbone. The picture is accurate, that fossil has no chin. A chin is the dimple between your bottom lip and the bottom of your face. Neanderthals don't have that.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chin , it states that the chin is.... "In the human anatomy, the chin is the lowermost part of the face.", which would be the protusion at the bottom of the face. If Neanderthals lack this, then that picture is inaccurate. However, it may be true that the Neanderthals simply lack that "dimple" you mentioned. If that is true, the statement must be clarified, but more investigation must be taken in order to acertain what it is the Neanderthal lack exactly. Lengis 18:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'm not quite following this discussion. Which picture are we talking about -- Laferr3.jpg or Neanderthaler.jpg? What neanderthals are lacking is the protrusion at the bottom of the jawbone -- one can clearly see that there is no chin in Laferr3.jpg. Compare it to [13]. In Neanderthaler.jpg, one can't tell if the mannequin has a chin because of the beard. --Chl 15:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The picture in question is Neanderthaler.jpg. If the protusion in that picture is indeed just the beard, perhaps it should be clarified in the blurb underneath the picture. Lengis 18:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Last paragraph of name and classification

I am deleting that last paragraph as it is false according to the following links Neanderthals are decended from Homo Erectus. Furthermore this will make the whole section internally consistent. As the section first discusses the controversy over their name and classification as part of H.Sapiens then claims that they evolved from H.Sapiens.


http://www.nd.edu/~hahn/pdffiles/ancient.skulls.nytimes.pdf


http://anthropology.net/user/gringoperdido/blog/2005/12/01/the_multiregional_vs_out_of_africa_debate

[edit] map

It would be great to have a distribution map of where neanderthals lived. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Along with a map, we should include a discussion of their migration Palmerston 01:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neanderthal theory

I suggest the people that has been removing the Neanderthal theory link state their reasons on the talk page before continuing with their vandalism. The link has been part of the article at several ocassions, and the last time it was installed, it wasn't me that did it. The theory is not unscientific, and it certainly has more than a few links to it. The theory itself is not at my private wiki, but at (www . rdos . net/eng/asperger.htm). The wiki-page only offers a more readable overview.--Rdos 18:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

First, that theory qualify as original research. Second - there no publication. Could you point to any? Who are the authors? Do they have degree in the field, do they have any publications in the field? The other thing - as you can see, your name resemble domain name of the site that hosts that theory. According to wiki policy's you could not place any link to site you created or administrator of. And the last, but not least, wikipedia had an article about Neanderthal theory at some point of time. Consensus was reached, article was removed as original research. It is dumb to place a link to same article but hosted elsewhere. TestPilot 03:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Original research only applies to articles hosted at Wikipedia, AFAIK. It is allowed to link to controversial material that is accepted amongst many people (in this case, a lot people with AS). Also, the article were removed on *second attempt*, and it survived a first attempt at deletion. The second attempt clearly was organized by people disliking the ideas, an not the factual content of the article. The Neanderthal theory also have been discussed on professional mailing-lists (EP) with many professinals in the field. Therefore, it is at least deemed as plausible.--Rdos 14:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stop using Wikipedia to publicize your personal theories. - Nunh-huh 14:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not a "personal theory". It has acceptance among many people that have been diagnosed wirth AS/HFA/Autism. Additionally, the concept of "wrong planet" and alike clearly predate the theory. It is also currently the *only* plausible theory that could back up many radical Aspies notion of "neurodiversity". --Rdos 15:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's your personal theory, we established that when its article was deleted. And even if it weren't, Wikipedia is not for spamming your weblinks. - Nunh-huh 15:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The article were not deleted because it was a "personal theory", but because it was not published in peer-reviewed journals. Besides, there is a difference between a link and a Wikipedia article. --Rdos 15:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So, now TestPilot has reverted a new link to the theory itself instead of the former wikipedia article as "vandalism". The vandalism is all on TestPilot. As usual, there were no bother to discuss this here either. --Rdos 15:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)`

Your edit was a clear violation of WP:EL. I explained that to you in my first statement, so you could not say that you was unaware. Violating policy is vandalism, IMO. TestPilot 15:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to read WP:EL yourself. Pages that contain a substantial fraction of factually inaccurate material or which contain unverified original research should not be linked to if there is scholary or scientific concensus about the subject and especially if the unverified original research contradicts this concensus.. I explained above that there exist no consensus on the issue of what happened to Neanderthal genes, nor is there any consensus on what causes autism or Asperger's syndrome. IOW, This paragraph does not apply to this link. Point 9 doesn't apply either. Another user reinstalled the link, and it was reverted as well. Your actions are clearly a violation of NPOV --Rdos 15:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
What should not be linked to : Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. And you are a site operator. TestPilot 15:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't apply either. The link is not there to promote my site, it is there to promote a new view of the autism-spectrum. It wasn't originally added by the site operator or any of its affiliates. Look at this section what should be linked to : On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. --Rdos 16:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok. As you decided to go bold colour... Lets summarize... So theory have just one author that got no degree in the field (not mentioning publications) and is not a professional. On the other hand, theory was "discussed with professionals". The wikipedia consensus was reached and this very theory was removed from here as original research. Now the guy fighting to have a link to his "theory". That is more than enough to make my mind. TestPilot 16:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

TestPilot, you are getting beside the point again. You are also confusing the policies for original research in articles from original / controversial research in links. You also obviously chose to ignore the most important policy of all, the requirement of articles to present conflicting points of view. As for my personal involvement, I state on my Userpage that I'm an Aspergian, which means I am a professional in the area I research (the origin and function of autistic genes and behaviors). Not only that, the claimed presence and acceptance of the Neanderthal theory, which clearly is described both in the VfD of the article *and* the links section of the deleted wiki-page I mirror at my web-site. Additionally, other Aspergian writers have written on this topic (links are again on the delete wiki-page). You are just bringing up points out of thin air without checking anything before presenting them. --Rdos 16:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rdos - the so called "Neanderthal theory" can stay once its published by a peer reviewed scientific journal covering paleoanthropology or genetics. Until then, it violates Wikipedia standards on Verifiability see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability --JPotter 03:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
It already have been extensively peer-reviewed in the autistic community. If other theories of autism had an equal amount of peer-review by autistics, not many of them would be around. The Neanderthal theory of autism have been discussed regularily on most major autistic community sites, and many of them also offer a link to it (which I haven't installed for them). It will very likely be published in scientific journals as well, but resistance from professionals to research this is still rather extensive. I maintain that this is a very broad theory, and requiring peer-review in the narrow fields of paleoanthropology or genetics doesn't seem to be justified. --Rdos 08:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
That is not what "peer review" means. By your definition, a scientific paper on dolphins would be peer reviewed by dolphins. Peer review is performed by other scientists and/or academics working in the same field. In this case, I would imagine there would be some research psychologists working on possible genetic origins of so-called metal illnesses, and just as likely some paleoanthropologists studying occurrences of mental illnesses in historic populations. Submit the "paper" to an appropriate scientific journal, and if the editors deem it worthy, they will send it to a handful of such "peers" to "review" its contents prior to publication.
And, by the way, the external site in question has not even been adequately proofread for punctuation, grammar, and spelling, let alone genuinely peer reviewed. I have some strange theories on my personal website, which I have discussed at length with other strange people. This does not make it worthy of a link from any wikipedia file discussing similar topics. -- human 00:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, but it hasn't been peer reviewed in ANY scientific journal. Until then, it has to go. --JPotter 16:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

It seems like the people participating here are all in favor of Neanderthals being "extinct" after coming in contact with superior Hss. The article itself also has no indication of anything else, and the Neanderthal theory (which proposes a lot about Hns abilities) has been removed because it doesn't agree with "popular views". Also, Templeton and his research is not even mentioned here. This clearly shows how biased this article is! --Rdos 15:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You put the POV tag on because we all keep taking the link to your website off. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Look above what you have yourself proposed on the talk page. Among other things, you are very poorly updated on the genetic research when you claim that Hn contribution to Hs has been ruled out. On the contrary, Alan Templeton have ruled out replacement with a error possibility of 10e-17, which means that replacement is no unlikely to account for the *nuclear* DNA of Eurasians that it has virtually been proved false. I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the article. There is also a crazy discussion here about what "ended Hn", with hypothesis that are totally outdated. Given the current nuclear DNA evidences, the only credible model is the wave model with incredibly low (or non-existant) advantages for Hss. Another necesary condition for the long coexistance is major behavioral differences that hindered efficient interbreeding and reduced it to causal introgression --Rdos 08:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to comment further... the so-called "Neanderthal theory" is not a theory, it is barely a hypothesis. It's more of an "idea," and a thinly sketched one, at that. By the way, it's going to be difficult to get taken seriously using "sentences" like this: "On the contrary, Alan Templeton have ruled out replacement with a error possibility of 10e-17, which means that replacement is no unlikely to account for the *nuclear* DNA of Eurasians that it has virtually been proved false." It may make sense to you, but I doubt if anyone else can follow it. -- human 00:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It is part of published research. There is also another new study like it that proposes at least 5% Neanderthal inheritance in Europeans. It is based on many different nuclear genes. I've added two new articles to the external links. --Rdos 10:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New red-hair study

I've read the complete new study, and not just the newspaper story. It certainly does not prove that MC1R mutated 20,000 years ago. This is simply an OoA proponents view of how to deal with the situation. In the paper it is anticipated that with only natural selection, the red-hair gene would require 800,000 years (!) to mutate. The idea that it somehow magically mutated 20,000 years ago instead is pure fantasy! I propose that the article can ont claim that Hardings study have been disproved, because it certainly hasn't, and for NPOV-reasons the wording should be changed in some way so people understand there is dispute. --Rdos 16:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A simple phenotypic trait such as red hair should only require several generations to mutate, and could easily have appeared within the last 20,000 years or so. The Out-of-Africa theory is the only credible account of human origins to date. Please cite this paper! It requires 800,000 years for a simple trait to evolve? That sounds like racist propagandha. There is nothing magical about such a trait appearing 20,000 years ago, and the only fantasy, Rdos, is the racist propagandha which you read. How is it racist you might ask? Well the very assertion that a simple phenotypic trait (i.e. red hair), which is associated with a racial group (i.e. white people) has such deep genetic roots that it requires nearly ONE MILLION YEARS to arise through natural evolutionary processes suggests that since different ethnic groups look quite different, there must be tremendous genetic differences. This simply is not the case. The author of the study might not be overtly racist, but this conclusion strongly implies racialist beliefs!
You must be kidding. Red hair is not a trait that can be found in the "founder population". Nor is many other traits like blue eyes, fair skin, RH negative and so on. The only racist theory I know about is the Out-of-Africa theory. It implies Africans are superior to other groups since they "wiped" everybody else out. --Rdos 17:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Red hair MIGHT not be found in African founder populations (though it is thought to be seen in Australoid populations in Australia, Papua New Guinea, and Melanesia), but the conclusion that a simple pigmentary polymorphism (mutation genes coding for brown melanins to produce bright orange as opposed to brown/black hair) would require nearly one million years to evolve is completely ludicrous and absurd. Maybe neanderthals had red or blonde hair, freckles, blue or green eyes, etc. That does not necessarily mean neanderthal ancestry. Similarly, alleged similarities with homo erectus populations and anatomically modern humans in the same area (Peking Man and modern Asians, Java Man and modern Australians and Malays) is due to convergent evolution due to similar climates throughout time, rather than descent. Most likely the aforementioned traits had origins in West Eurasian modern humans 50,000-10,000 years ago. And no, there is nothing racist about the out-of-Africa theory. First of all, growing bodies of evidence from morphological studies of fossilized skeletal remains (human paleontology, paleoanthropology) and evidence from reconstructed genetic sequences, argue for the "splitter" rather than the "lumper" position, that is that hominid taxonomy should consider H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, H. sapiens, etc. sepparate species. By definition they could not interbreed to produce fertile offspring (though neanderthals and sapiens could probably have mule-like offspring). If this is the case, then the multi-regional and polygenesis models are effectively ruled out, and out-of-Africa is true via process of elimination, since no members of Homo sapiens have been found outside of Africa before 90,000 years ago. A statement such as "[out-of-Africa] implies that Africans are superior to other groups," implies that H. sapiens sapiens are a sepparate "race" or subspecies from neanderthals and Asiatic H. erectus (archaic homo sapiens), when in fact they are a different species, thus OOA theory is not "racist". Specieist maybe... Second, I do not see any racist implications regardless because all modern human races belong to the same species (Homo sapiens) and subspecies (H. sapiens sapiens) and all population lineage groups are ultimately of African derivation. I pity ye Rdos for your reasoning is critically flawed!
Guys, please relax. Rdos is not trying to spread racist propoganda as far as I can see (nor does his claim that Out-of-Africa theory is racist make any sense). The fact is that the Out-of-Africa theory is the dominant theory of human origin but there are still minority viewpoints that are tenable (as well as minority viewpoints that are out to lunch). There is really a significant enough minority who believe that red hair/autism/hairy backs/whatever are somehow connected to Neanderthals interbreeding with humans that it deserves a mention here if properly sourced and not given undue weight. I mean, sure, it should be fairly obvious to anyone who really thinks about it that any Neanderthal influence on modern Homo Sapiens is highly minimal (given that modern Celts are indiistinguishable from modern Tamils except for colouration) but that's not for us to decide. We just need to treat each viewpoint fairly. WilyD 21:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia is NOT a scientific source. It is essentially a phonebook of quick information. Point is, that there are reasons why some theories are more prominent. And the multi-regional hypothesis is a fringe view at best! Not to say that it is unsupported by intelligent, educated, even renowned experts. Admittedly, it may not be settled. I guess the only way to settle this debate is to somehow reconstruct the neanderthal genome from fossilized or frozen remains, clone dozens of neanderthals, and conduct breeding experiments! This does not seem feasible as of yet given our technological limits. Nevertheless, it is true that the most vehement supporters of the multi-regional hypothesis are often racist (and sometimes fans of Carleton Coon, himself a racist and early proponent of an extreme form of multiregionalism). Again not ALL multi-regionalists are racist and some out-of-Africa theorists may be racist (Steve Sailer), but it is far easier to support racism with the multiregional hypothesis (with 200,000-900,000 years of divergence, possibly 1.5 million years between some proto-human populations) than with the out-of-Africa scenario (20,000-90,000 years of divergence). If multiregionalism is true, then perhaps there are four or five living subspecies. Even though according to the underlying assumption (which is supported by molecualr genetics) behind out-of-Africa hominid evolution occured at a faster rate than previously assumed (ooA theorists are generally "splitters" when it comes to classification of hominid fossils), and that the 200,000 or so years when homo sapiens lived may have been sufficient for subspecies to form (Homo sapiens sapiens and the older Homo sapiens idaltu), but only Hss has left Africa, and all Africans belong to the Hss group as well. Thus, there are no subspecies distinctions within anatomically modern humans. My point is, fringe view points should be included, but not equated as "equally valid" as politically correct postmodernist types would do. The strongest evidence for the hybrid theory is that some half-neanderthal/half-sapien remains have been found. If true, than this does not automatically refute the out of Africa model or supply ANY evidence for neanderthal ancestry in modern humans, since horses and asses (donkeys) have been hybridizing, but their offspring (mules and jennies) are sterile. Most likely, such hybrids were not reproductively viable, as indicated by the fact that alleged sapien-neanderthal hybrids are always found at a 50-50 rate. And UTC, I do not know Rdos personally, so I do not consider him/her racist. Rdos may or may not be, but nothing explicitly indicates that. I only accused Rdos' sources of being uncredible and having either racist viewpoints, or implicitly racist conclusions. How could the suggestion that simple pigmentary polymorphisms require hundreds of thousands of years to evolve, which implies that phenothypic traits have DEEP genetic roots, and further implies that such genes are so complex, that they may have disparate functions, not in effect be racialist? Interestingly, from what I gather Rdos believes the Out-of-Africa theory to be Afrocentric propogandha. Do I think that Rdos is racist? No, not necessarily. Do I consider Rdos insensitive to racism? Yes.
In a scientific context, fringe can mean different things. Something like Nemesis (star) is definitely a fringe scientific belief, but not a scientifically excluded idea - Nemesis may well exist, and any astronomer would say as much, but most believe it doesn't exist - it's just not a very strong belief. Contrast against creationism, which is a fringe belief that's scientifically absolutely wrong. Nemesis is viable scientific idea that's fringe, creationism is a non-viable scientific idea that's fringe. I'm not sure it's clear human-neanderthal hybridisation is the later, and I'm fairly sure there are alternatives to the out of Africa idea are the former (for instance, H. sapiens evolving in the middle east or something). I don't think there's a smoking gun on that issue, like there is for MOND. WilyD 22:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Aborigines relation to Neanderthal

A WikiPedia member named CJLL Wright erased my addition to the article regarding the link between Neanderthal and Australian Aborigines, saying "unsupported (and rather ludicrous, not to mention offensive) para proposing Australian Aborigines as Neanderthals)" I believe his comment that it is offensive is due to his viewpoint of Neanderthals as lesser humans or something to that effect. Although the popular cultural view of Neanderthal is not very high, Neanderthals were impressive for their time and in fact left more archaological evidence than modern Tasmanians left before they went extinct: "The most recent aboriginal open air rock art in Tasmania appears to be only 2,000 years old. In 20,000 years or so, it all will have eroded away, leaving the future archeologist no evidence of representational art among these peoples. These people, who are fully human, fully spiritual... will appear to the future archeologist as the Neanderthal's and erectus' appear to us. There will be no evidence of art, religion, and certainly no evidence of inventiveness. Since Neanderthal did leave some evidence of a religious life (possible bear cult activities), some evidence of an artistic life (flutes and whistles) and some evidence of inventiveness, they will actually appear better to future archeologists than will the Tasmanians. (We) should not feel comfortable in rejecting the humanity of Neanderthals and erectus' when the Tasmanians left less material for the future archeologist to find than did Neanderthal. Yet we KNOW that the Tasmanians were human." [14] "It was of course unfortunate that the early evolutionists picture Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis as subhuman brutes. Their misleading depictions lingered for a long time before more fossils show otherwise." [15]

CJLL Wright's viewpoint reminds me of the Politically Correct reaction when Darwin claimed humans descended from ape-like creatures. There's nothing to be offended about, it's just scientific investigation.

Regarding CJLL Wright's claim that it is unsubstantiated, take a look at a mtDNA comparison between Modern Humans, Modern Aborigines and Neanderthal (note the article "New DNA Evidence Supports Multiregional Evolutionary Model" is on a creationism page, but the source of the data was not). Also of note, they list Aborigine separate from modern human - is that a clue or what? [16]

The Neanderthal DNA is fragmented as expected, but what we have matches the Australian (ancient as well as modern) much more closely than modern human DNA. Just to spell it out, compare the first five sequences available in all three samples: 129, 189, 209, 223, 299

Modern Human*: G, T, T, C, A

Modern Australian Aborigine: A, C, C, T, G

30,000 yr Neanderthal: A, C, C, T, G

Only 256 and 258 were mismatches, and yet the Aborigine still did not match the modern human DNA. If that isn't compelling evidence, I don't know what is. (* Obviously they need to come up with different terminology, because Aborigines are modern humans too)

There are many scientists who speculate Aborigines may be surviving remnants of Neanderthal, based on decent genetic, geographic, and archeological evidence: "The original people of Australia, the Aborigines, have no known connection to any other living race. Because of this, ethnologists usually classify them as a separate race called Australoid. Some believe they may have been migrants from the Asiatic mainland in pre-historic times. Others identify the Australoids as a surviving remnant of the Neanderthal Man." [17]

"Some believe that Neanderthal was simply another race of humans, perhaps most similar to aborigines from Australia." [18]

If Cro-Magnon came onto the scene 35,000 years ago, and Aborigines were genetically isolated 50,000 years ago, what do you conclude? They must be Neanderthal in origin or some other contemporary type of human. Add to that the belief that Neanderthal could mate with humans, and I propose adding the following to the article: "Scientists have speculated that Australian Aborigines (and especially Tasmanian Aborigines, now extinct) have a background more in common with Neanderthal than with Cro-Magnon. "Some believe that Neanderthal was simply another race of humans, perhaps most similar to aborigines from Australia."[19] Genetic studies of Aborigines and archeological studies reveal that Aborigines were geographically cut-off from other races approximately 50,000 years ago. Since Cro-Magnon man only appeared around 35,000 years ago, it seems probable that Aborigines are a living branch of Neanderthal. Physical similarities between Neanderthal man and Aborigines are striking, and include prominent brow ridge, short bowed shoulder blades, weak chin, and large nose. Presently, there is no clear or accepted racial origin of the indigenous people of Australia and they are not closely related to any identifiable racial group." -- JettaMann 13:58, 2 April 2006 (CST).

Homo sapiens (that is, modern man) is at least 100 thousand years old (not 35) and is therefore far older than the colonization of Australia. Physical similarities between Aborigines and Neanderthalls are not really indicative of any phylogenetic relationship. And the article with the DNA evidence does not argue that Aborigines are actually descended from Neanderthals. In fact, in support of creation, it argues that all human beings have one single origin and no other genetic source. To claim that Aborigines are a remnant population of Neanderthals is going to require some more widely accepted studies. bcasterline t 19:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
JettaMann, 'twas I who had removed your deleted your text. I mentioned it could be construed as offensive since the accepted scientific view holds Neanderthals to be a separate species of hominid to modern humans, and therefore your unqualified statement that "scientists have speculated" (really? who, exactly, and how many?) would deny that Australian Aboriginal peoples are anatomically-modern homo sapiens. The additional sources you provide still do not bear out your thesis, as pointed out above. --cjllw | TALK 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Not my area, but I see that some studies say that Aboriginal Australians may be better related to Homo Erectus than Neanderthals [20] [21] [22] [23] The Yeti 15:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery

Pieces of the original Neanderthal holotype were apparently discovered in 1999. [24] This fact (if true) should merit a line in the article or a link at the end of the article. --bkm pdx, oregon, usa

[edit] Neanderthal "Shortness"

The first paragraph describes Neanderthals and being Short and Robust at an average of 5 feet 6 inches. Was this short compared to Cro-Magnon man, or just short compared to a modern European? --Eraticus 06:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that one. Does anyone have literature that would clear this up? Ladlergo 13:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

given that height has increased over the last few hundred years, it seems like 5'6 may actually be normal or even tall...

Britannica says that Cro-Magnons were an average of 5'10". Apparently the height increase after the industrial revolution has only made up what was lost when hunter-gatherers shrunk to farmers... Farming: It's bad for your height! Chl 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the things talked about in anthro, that the switch to farming was actually bad in terms of an individual's physical health.
If 5'10" is CM and first-world countries are reaching 6' for the youngest generation of men, I'd say that 5'6" is short compared to both. Does anyone have numbers for male vs. female heights? That would make it even clearer. Ladlergo 19:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting rid of the "brute" stuff

I think it is time to get rid of most of the "popular culture" section. This is only a lot of prejudice on Neanderthal that I think we can live without. If it must be kept, for whatever reason, I suggest placing it in a separate article, like Misconceptions of Neanderthal. --Rdos 13:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The misperception of Neanderthals in popular culture is hugely relevent to the article - at least a short mention needs to be made here. If the article is too long, or the section on popular culture is too long, it can be split to Neanderthals in Popular Culture but I don't see the need right now. Maybe I'm blind? WilyD 15:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I see it as highly suspect in this context. It only builds misconceptions about Neanderthal abilities. By the way, isn't much of the recent findings about Neanderthal ability missing? Where is the study on the use of glue, for instance? --Rdos 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It neither builds nor destroys misconceptions about Neanderthals. It merely reports on how their seen in popular culture. I'm not an anthropologist, and none of the journals I read deal with anthropology, so I'm really not in a position to work on your second thought - I only meant to address the first one. WilyD 16:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll waít for others comments on the first issue. I've added the abstract for the "glue" manifacturing paper (I have the full-text version also, but I cannot link it) --Rdos 17:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Links are preferable, but if you can't link to it, a journal citation sans link is also acceptable. WilyD 17:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot link to it because it is not free. Certainly, I could add the journal citation instead of the abstract, but isn't the abstract enough to show what it is about? --Rdos 19:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, of course, you're free to be bold, I'm not sure whether an abstract is really better than an unlinked journal citation or not. WilyD 19:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The french article on Neanderthal

[25] seems to contain a lot of material that should be here also, for instance maps. I also note that it seems to lack "popular culture". I propose that a french-speaking user do some merging. --Rdos 13:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If we find a bilingual user, they might do well to translate our section on popular culture and add it there. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I prefer if they don't. The culture section is only based on prejudice, and isn't adding anything to the subject at hand (Neanderthals). --Rdos 20:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Your unusual views on Neanderthals aside, most people would not agree with that perception. Is Dinosaur#In_popular_culture "based on prejudice" because Jurassic Park depicts Tyrannosaurus in an unflattering light? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What parts of it are you looking for? I read the article (with some difficulty) and it seems like the only section we're really missing here is Histoire et répartition des Néandertaliens ~ with the nice maps. I'll try and take a stab at that - otherwise, what else? WilyD 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I mainly meant maps and other illustrations, especially since my french isn't good enough to understand the text.
Okay, maps and images should be easy enough to steal. WilyD 21:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hybridisation study

Why isn't the Hybridisation in animals relevant to Neanderthals? Isn't it true that if this can happen in other animals, so could it between closely related Homo species? I'd think it is extra relevant because of the most recent nuclear DNA study. --Rdos 15:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This article already links to interbreeding, which is where a reader could go to learn more about interbreeding if they're so inclined (though that ariticle could use some work!). Interbreed would be an appropriate place for a link on interbreeding - an article on Neaderthals is an appropriate place for a link about Neanderthals. Having possibly interbred with other species is not a characteristic trait of Neanderthals, or even an unusual one, so a link about interbreeding in general doesn't belong here. WilyD 16:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, seems like a better place to add it to. --Rdos 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language

The following was added to the article, where it didn't belong. So I added a NPOV warning and moved it here;

pre-note This section was updated with content which gave the 'neanderthals had language'-hypotheis the measured tone this issue requires(it is totally circumstantial and the literature is split on the topic). These additions were deleted without any consultation and this section therefore has been rendered un-measured in its claims. Therefore the neutrality of this article is questionable.'

The comment was added by User:62.11.119.9 WilyD 16:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The "updated content" seems to be this. I don't know anything about the accuracy either way, but what 62.11.119.9 is referring to clearly takes the position that Neanderthals could not speak. It did more than "measure" the tone of the current section, and was probably reverted by User:UtherSRG for that reason. -- bcasterline • talk 16:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I agree it definitely changes the tone, et cetera. I also have no idea as to the accuracy - but I'll note that neither version has a single citation - maybe someone can work on finding some? WilyD 16:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Likely, it was our friend USer:Rdos. Agreed, we need citation either way on this. However, the "literature" is far from split on this issue. The idea that the neanderthals had speech is favored based on the hyoid bone evidence. It's incumbant upon Rdos to provide a journal citation that raises alternative evidences. JPotter 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of who it is, I'll submit the following proposal: Leave the section the way it is, with the NPOV tag, until some citations are provided. I'll see if I can look for some, but I'm not an anthropologist, and as far as I can see, anhtropologists don't have anything equivilent to the arXiv, so I'm not sure where to start. WilyD 17:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. The first two paragraphs of this section are now sufficiently cited by peer reviewed journals. The remaing paragraphs need cited or they should be removed. Also, in order to get rid of the NPOV tag, we'll need a couple of paragraphs (depending on the undue weight parameters)with references to the opposing view that neanderthalensis could not speak. JPotter 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Great work - as for things needing tags, please feel free to slap a {{citation needed}} tag on anything you think is disputed. WilyD 20:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to say the last couple of paragraphs of this section strike me as thouroghly NPOVerished, and worse than that, academically rude. "The more ludicrous suggestions about Neanderthal. . . " "A great many phonetically ill-informed comments"? I am not expert on the subject and therefore cannot speak to the validity of these paragraphs, but those entries sound sophomoric IMHO, and even a bit nasty. They seem to argue for Neaderthal speech strongly, and even question the mental capacity or rigour of those who disagree. Ouch, makes wiki look bad.whozatmac 12 Oct. 2006
Agreed. I've added template warnings on tone and neutrality until someone with more knowledge can clean up the section. 137.165.212.213 19:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if the discovery that Neanderthals made tar pitch in the Harz Mountains, and used it to affix tool heads to handles would be worth mentioning in the language section? It seems to provide strong circumstantial evidence that Neandertal communication techniques ought to have extended as far as fairly advanced language, for such significant technology to be possible.Lighton 16:04, 15 November, 2006

[edit] Neandercruft

Added the following to the popular culture section " This section has grown very large and is approaching the cruft limit. Please consider this before adding yet another reference to neanderthals in the last book you read. Ask yourself does it add information to the article that is useful to the reader. JPotter 15:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support removing the entire list. It adds very little, if anything, to the article. -- bcasterline • talk 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Time to split it off into its own article. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is 33K, so split it off, retain the intro, drop the list and link this to that, I think in the best approach. WilyD 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Very nice. FA here we come. JPotter 00:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur. alteripse 00:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I've left a comment on the new article's talk page on how it should be organized. The one thing that bugged me was that I couldn't easily see if something was mentioned unless I did a search. Ladlergo 01:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] new information from Gibraltar!!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060913.wneanAM0913/BNStory/Science/home --Sonjaaa 18:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that there is continued controversy over whether Neanderthals were or were not a separate species, why does this article only present one point of view? -- Strangelv 06:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synonyms

Why was a mention of Neanderthal's synonym "Palaeoanthropus" removed as "archaic synonym"? It is used in some modern books [26] [27]. Or 1999, 2003 editions are "archaic"? But even if it would be archaic indeed, I believe, this would not be a reason for removing it's mention completely, just a note "in the past" should be added. Cmapm 10:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I was rushed to get out the door this morning. I've reverted again, but put it in the taxobox where it belongs. But even so, it is marginal compared to the usages of H. n. or even H. s. n. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Racist overtones?!

"traits selected by nature in cold climates, as observed in modern sub-arctic populations". It it often postulated that there are adaptive diffrences between populations, but as i recall almost all of these turn out to be indistinguahable from sexual selection scientifically. I'm don't remember the specific aritlces for skin color but it's a good example of this arguement. I am for this statement being removed or at least discussed. thanks -z

This article provides evidence that Neandertal habitat is limited to Europe, North Asia and the Middle East. Most Neandertal caricatures presented by scientists (not limited to this article) do not depict them as having certain caucasian traits such as blue eyes, red hair, etc. There is a problem in that these caricatures are presented within the same context as scientific fact.

The tendency to omit some of these typically European features helps to serve the historically racist conjecture that Neanderthals could not have interbred with European Homo Sapiens. Taking modern human sexuality into consideration, the important question to ask is not, "Why would humans interbreed with Neandertals?" but, "Why wouldn't humans interbreed with Neandertals?" Given the evidence that supports interaction between European Homo Sapien and Neandertal cultures, it is irresponsible and dismissive to reject the possibility that at least once in history, sexual needs were fulfilled between members of these cultures, and hybrids were absorbed between them. Because modern human culture generally allows for easy fulfillment of sexual needs, it is seemingly easy for many in the scientific community to lose sight of the fact that sexual need is a more powerful motivator than cultural taboo.

Depicting Neandertals as being closely related to ALL modern European cultural groups would lend more weight to the idea that modern human evolutionary history cannot be completely segregated from that of Neandertals. - JM

  • I'm not sure this is a well supportable argument. I'm not sure I've ever seen a depiction of a neanderthal that could be considered even vaguely scientific that doesn't look either European or Mediterranian. I've definitely seen blond haired blue-eyed depictions. Maybe on other occasions darker haired and more olive skinned (Italian or Greek looking?) - but non-European? There are two depictions here, and both are "vaguely European". However, while we can probably guess that Neanderthals have light skin (doesn't everyone where it's cold?) hair colour and (especially) eye colour are not things that have been identified in any source I'm familiar with. In fact, we can probably guess that non-black hair is a recently evolved trait (given it's very low prevalence in the population of humans, and geographical occurance, et cetera) and from that infer it's unlikely that the hair colour of modern European Caucasians (who are a minority of Caucasians, who mostly have black hair) is related to the Neanderthals - even if there was interbreeding.
  • Additionally, I'm not sure that anyone is seriously suggestion Neanderthals and Modern Humans didn't bump uglies. As far as I can tell, anyone suggesting the two species didn't interbreed is suggesting it on the grounds of genetic incapability, or physical incapability (like spacial/temporal seperation). There are lots of species you can have sex with but not interbreed with (in fact, I think it's every living one), it is possible Neanderthals are one such species.
  • Additionally, lots of the modern subartic population is European. If you're trying to suggest that this line implies Neanderthals are somehow more distant from modern European populations than other modern populations, you should revisit it.
  • Apart from which, verifiable facts are not removed from Wikipedia just because they're offensive. If you want someone to dig up a citation for this (which should be easy) - then ask. The sentence serves an obvious pedagogical purpose. There are population traits that are somewhat responsive to environment. Modern humans show very little environmental adaption because we migrate like crazy - take time back and this happens less. WilyD 22:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove "Reconstruction of a Neanderthal woman"

This isn't an accurate reconstruction, but a woman wearing Neanderthal makeup, perhaps for the sake of a dramatization. From the comment on the image: "This picture shows a modern woman (Homo sapiens) with a heavy make-up. It cannot be considered as a representative view of a Neandertal woman because of many inconsistent features (particularly the proeminent chin)."

Using Google, there are lots of pictures to choose from that look like forensic reconstructions.Cnadolski 19:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


I agree that probably isn't the best image, but we can't just pull any off of google, we need permission. Do you have a public domain or fair use image in mind to replace it? Nowimnthing 21:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is a detailed page about a neanderthal facial reconstruction which contains a large picture of the final result. This is the artist who made it, according to the page (note: it's in French). Would the images on her website be considered fair use? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cnadolski (talk • contribs) 16:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
I don't think a case could be made for fair use unless they were used in an article discussing her and her work. Fair use guidelines note that "there are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis." (my emphasis) If a copyright image is being used to illustrate an unrelated article, rather then article on the image itself (or its creator) then it isn't fair use. - Eron Talk 17:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
What if we just asked her (the artist) for an exemplar image?Cnadolski 19:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
As long as she released it under the appropriate free licence, that would be okay. - Eron Talk 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Since I'm new to this kind of copyright thing, what kind of license do you think I could realistically ask her to release it under? Is there anything like "under copyright, but permission given by the author to be used by wikipedia"? Cnadolski 20:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
No, permission for Wikipedia isn't acceptable, because Wikipedia is distributed under GDFL, all content is licenced under GDFL or looser (like public domain) WilyD 20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for more info on getting the right permissions. Nowimnthing 21:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep the "Reconstruction of a Neanderthal child" :-)

I add complete description to the Image:Neanderthal child.jpg. I like it personally. Without my POV, it is the reconstruction made by research team from Anthropological Institute, University of Zürich. There are contacts of Christoph P.E. Zollikofer and Marcia S. Ponce de León so you can ask them about their work: tomographic scanning and laser stereolithography. Elisabeth Daynès made a final reconstruction. Vugluskr 05:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Major props to whomever put up the Neanderthal child reconstruction. This was the suggestion I made above, and somebody put it up better than I ever could have done. Thanks! Cnadolski 15:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cro magnon & neanderthal

how did the cro magnons & neanderthals interact? i thought that cro magnons were smarter but was it just luck that they didn't die out?70.243.80.69 21:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Jadee

  • Truth is, we do not really know, we can only speculate - Skysmith 11:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I did some resesarch and I think that because humans(including neanderthals) simply lack animal abilities e.g. dogs' sense of smell & hearing, a birds flight, etc. leaves us with only our ability to think complexly. The neanderthals may have thought more like an animal than a person which means they had no "survival tools."70.243.80.69 19:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Jadee

Non-human animals have plenty of survival tools. It is probable that modern humans were capable of creating superior weapons giving them the upperhand against the Neanderthals. Dionyseus 06:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
One thing I hate is that people always assume that neanderthals were some kind of retarded race of humans. Neanderthals not only had a larger braincase, but a far more robust build and a large nose that *might* have been capable of super-human smell. If they were more intelligent, it may have been sapien aggression and violence or simply conscience that gave rise to us instead of them. In any case, we were most definitely their equals. Specusci 16:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that animals lack survival "tools" (abilities count) I said that neanderthals lack the "tools". That could be why they died out. They had neither abilities or actual tools, while the cro magnons did have the ability to make advanced tools.70.129.203.222 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Jadee

Prior to more complex tool-kit cultures by Sapiens, which did not give rise till shortly after the theoretical extinction period, Neanderthals had a very slightly more complex tool-making system then did other humanoids at the time. Think "Mousterian Culture". Specusci 16:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What's with the self-loathing? Our species won, so how can you say Neanderthal's were better? They were outdone in every way, and that's why they're existinct. And that is the same reason why we "own" every animal on this planet, we use many as our food supply, and others as pets to stimulate human emotion. 67.84.46.162 17:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one question: who won? I was born in 1976, personally :-) Vugluskr 13:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Say rather that we are the survivors. Exactly what happened to the Neanderthals is far from known fact. Myk 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's a rather different take on how the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons "interacted" and why the former disappeared: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/e-wah031307.php

Here's the full text of the journal article that that press release was based on: http://xchar.home.att.net/n2a/medhyp.htm PeterLinn 04:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the article

Firstly the opening section is far too full of Technical jargon that most readers will not understand (it reads like an academic paper meant for archaeologists), I had to look-up (and link) most of the term used there. It needs to be made much more understandable to a layman, some other parts of the article suffer from this also. The other problem with the article is that about halfway down (mainly in the Language section), the text seems to become almost combative and angry (like it's trying to push some POV), on many occasions a criticism of a theory is put before the theory itself. It seems like the article has two different faces, one calm and matter-of-fact, the other almost ranting. One other thing that needs to be mentioned is the life expectancy of the Neanderthals, there is a section on Pathology but it doesn't mention this important fact. If it can be estimated for stone-age Humans (which it has been) then surely the same can be (and I'm sure has been) done for the Neanderthals. --Hibernian 07:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I only looked at the first few paragraphs, but I see what you mean about the technical jargon. Damn, I got an A in archeaology and physicical anthro and even I don't know all of what they are saying (but I do understand most of it). My understading of their life expectancy is that it was pretty low compared to modern (industrialized or post-industrialized) humans, but I can't give any numbers. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 09:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category "Apes"

Recently I removed the [[Category:Apes]] tag from this article, characterizing it somewhat intemperately as "preposterous". I apologize for that obstreperous adjective. (I was quickly reverted by a mystery guest.)

My objection to the use of [[Category:Apes]] has to do with the fact that it is a legacy paraphyletic grouping, and does not clearly map to a recognized clade. For example, should it mean Hominidae, or Hominoidea?

I had also hoped somehow to innoculate the article against abuse by e.g. a Creationist who would use the tag to support an argument that Neanderthal was "only" an ape. I suppose that gesture is pointless, given that the article Homo sapiens carries the same tag. But I still think that the use of ethnotaxonomic categories can generate more heat than light.

(The "ethnos" in question here is essentially the English-speaking world. In the German Wikipedia there is no [[Kategorie:Affen]], because the German word Affe means "monkey", as well as "ape".)

Lastly, given that the article is already tagged with [[Category:Early hominids]], the tag is redundant. And as long as the article includes the template {{Human evolution}}, and until the somewhat incoherent Wikipedia category system is made more rigorous, I think it might be best to minimize the use of such categories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ziusudra (talk • contribs).

Ape == Hominoidea. But yes, Cat:Early hominids suffices because it is contained within Cat:Apes. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
However laudible the goal of sanitizing the term "ape" and imbuing it with scientific rigor, I hope I may be forgiven if I find "==" to be a bit facile. It is not always possible to promote ordinary language directly into scientific terminology by fiat. That is why new terminology is continually being invented as theories evolve.
Consider the following quotation from Dr. Nina G. Jablonski, primatologist, evolutionary biologist, paleontologist, and current head of the Department of Anthropology at Pennsylvania State University, taken from today's (2001-01-09) New York Times:
“ There was a tremendous takeoff in human evolution about two million years ago when primates who could no longer be called apes appeared in the savannahs of East Africa. ”
This demonstrates that even some professional paleontologists cling to the ordinary language paraphyletic usage when speaking to non-specialists.
A similar problem will be found with "Cat". One may prescribe "cat"==Felis, but the "big cats" in Felidae (e.g. tiger) are excluded from [[Category:Cats]]. (Cf. "great apes".)
--Ziusudra 15:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
As long as Human is in Category:Apes, it seems pretty inconsistant not to list this there as well. WilyD 16:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the term ape is colloquial, imprecise and generally unscientific. However, the consensus of editors believe and can cite that the term ape is verifiably equivocal with Hominoidea. JPotter 18:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Equivocal is about right. As to the inconsistency, I would vote to lose the category altogether. --Ziusudra 18:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You can always bring it to categories for deletion. I doubt it'd get deleted - Ape maybe unscientific (I have no idea, I'm not a zoologist) but it's hardly colloquial. But whether the category should exist isn't an appropriate question for this page - the question is: As long as the category exists, should this page be in it? The answer is such a blindingly obvious yes per the Human precedent I'm not sure why we're discussing it at this length. WilyD 19:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Apes is also redundant in article Human, since the article is tagged with Category:Humans, which is a subcategory of Category:Apes. And, is it no also "blindingly obvious" that humans are primates and mammals and vertebrates and animals? Yet we do not supply those categories.
What has become clear to me as a result of this discussion, however, is that the use of Category:Apes in these articles has an ideological and didactic goal. So, not wishing to be crushed beneath the juggernaut wheels of the Naked Ape bandwagon, I abandon my objection and happily hop aboard. --Ziusudra 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neanderthal/Human interbreeding

If anyone has been following any recent news, some scientists found a skull that could very well be evidence of Neanderthal/Human interbreeding dating back to 35,000-40,000 years ago, which also indicates the earliest humans. It's been reported on CNN and Scientific American, so I was wondering if maybe we should add this somewhere in the article? Links to the reports:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/15/humans.neanderthals.ap/index.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=064E3A5648FB4A7F911155BD81F87FD2

Specusci 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Did Cromagnon Women overwhelm the Neanderthal genome?

Has any investigator considered the possibility that Cro-Magnon Women overwhelmed the Neanderthal genome by successive generations of interbreeding? This would parallel the biological conquest of the Caribs by the Arawak. Superficially because the Carib abducted Arawak women it would seem that the Carib were the conquerors, yet somehow the Caribs never controlled the major Caribbean islands and their women did not speak Carib but Igneri an Arawak language. Thus one might be able to rationally postulate that the stronger Neanderthal abducted Cro-Magnon women until the resulting interbred Neanderthals were genetically closer to the Cro-Magnon than to their original ancestors. Then some Neanderthal genes probably survive to this day at low levels frequency levels (Hardy-Weinberg principle) in the general population. And at higher levels in selected populations such as American football players, or Basque mountaineers. On any American University campus one can readily note with some amusement the attraction between cheerleaders and football players. Such a postulate could be tested comparing Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA sequences. El Jigüe 1-16-06


) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Creationist Section? Are you Kidding?

I see that a large new Section has been created detailing Creationist views of Neanderthals. Is this really needed? I mean, must every article related to Evolution have Creationist opposition put into it? There's about 10 new links been created at the bottom referencing this baloney. Frankly I think having a short passage explaining creationist's opposition to evolution and thus Neanderthals would be more than generous. --Hibernian 18:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Make it so. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You know it's kind of annoying when people just say be bold to all these issues. I'd be quite happy to be bold and just delete the section, but I guessed that would just start an edit war, so I come here for some kind of consensus. --Hibernian 04:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It should come out. Clearly the section is POV and violates undue weight principles of NPOV. JPotter 16:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree this should be removed immediately. Creationism is a type of mythos, and doesn't belong in the same catagory as established fact. A strawman rule should apply. It degrades an article (which I was hoping to show my grade 6 class) that it should be lumped in with a belief system shared only by a view zealots. A separate link could be put in the article regarding creationism beliefs, but it (creationism belief) shouldn't be in the actual article. Tercero 12:43, January 2007 (EST)
Is that enough consensus for you? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well... *sigh* I went to delete the section, but stopped to fully read it. It's actually very well written. It doesn't say "Neanderthals were blah blah blah because the Earth is only 6000 years old." It does very well to say that these are various Creationist viewpoints, and that they are in contrast to scientific facts. In fact, the images of the Human vs. Neanderthal skulls clearly shows that the Creationist views regarding the fossils is clearly wrong. (See, you should have just deleted it yesterday, Hibernian, before I had a chance to change my mind.) - UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks to whomever removed the article. Again, I'm doing a lesson plan on human evolution, and I can now show this article to students (and include it in a reference handout) without prejudice. Tercero 13:16, January 2007 (EST)

Let us know when you have gotten what you need. I'll restore the section, then put it through the WP:RfC process, or whatever other process is proper. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Please go ahead with whatever changes you feel are necessary. I've shown my students what I needed, asked them to continue to reference it from the school library and at home (with their parents permission). I do disagree however that you should restore it to the way it was. It was well written, but, it still places educators in a difficult position, having to choose between open education and what we know will be a backlash from parents who vehemently disagree with any non-secular ideas. Tercero 15:02, January 2007 (EST). It (the creationist point of view) should be viewed as a separate entity on non scientific interpretation.

Wikipedia's purpose is not as anything more than an encyclopedia. It is not designed as an educational tool, although it can be used in that way. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Creationism section

This is a dispute about whether the creationism section should be left in or deleted. - 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

As a non-Creationist, I had previously agreed to the section being removed. However, I feel that this section has merit, and that it should not be dumped just because it is Creationistic. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(I think I'm supposed to post here...) Well I've already made my view clear, delete it. If not delete it, then at most have one sentence in the Popular Culture section mentioning that Creationists don't believe in Neanderthals or Evolutions, etc. Something like "Creationists do not accept the scientific view of Neanderthals and some have attempted to explain their existence with various theories. See Creation science." As I said, that would be more than generous. --Hibernian 00:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • Though I do not agree with any of the theories put forth in this section, I do believe that it merits mention. After all, pop-culture references to Neanderthals are included, and this creationism section could be considered as (part of) society's view on Neanderthals, regardless of whether some (or all editors of this article) think there is no scientific basis. I would point out WP:UNDUE, which I think this section violates. It should be shortened, but not deleted. Ufwuct 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Clarification: It is undue weight not in the sense that it takes up the majority of the article or even a large part of it, but that it is a very small minority opinion. I've heard many, many creationist arguments before but not these arguments. Ufwuct 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Does it really constitute undue weight? We can always spin it out into Creationist theories on Neanderthals and shorten the part here. As it stands, it doesn't seem too excessive (at least, not way too excessive). WilyD 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, a little bit. I was actually thinking of reducing the length by maybe one third or one half, depending on where we decide to move the rest of the information. Ufwuct 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I came by on request. For what it is worth here are my thoughts:
  • The section is very entertaining. Build them up and knock them down
  • There is reference to " author and webmaster Dr. Jack Cuozzo..." which is laughable. Should not Charles Darwin therefore be, "husband and father as well as naturalist..." Is this meaning to demean by elevating a person to trivial rank. I'll even be blunt enough to state that if www.jackcuozzo.com is designed by the same person it should state "author and webneophyte" as his webdesign is quite appalling. The reference given doesn't even lead to the stated information. False link.
  • Carrying on, other links are bogus. Check them out yourself. (Answersingenesis goes to the homepage not an article).
  • The so called Cuozzo theory? I can't find a peer reviewed scientific paper from the chap. Idea would be the best I could think of. "An idea that someone thought of is ...". My personal theory is that, "Neaderthals come from ancient Mars adapated to the Earth's atmosphere. This accounts for the larger lungs used to extract the limted amounts of oxygen from the martican atmosphere 200k years ago." Can we include that please?
  • The last part knocking creationists about the age of Noah seems to be original research
  • Although Wikip has issues with no Original Research it seems to be fine to link to web sites which are simply unsubstantiated viewpoints of creationist propoganda. Does this mean I can make my own website and link to that? It's verifyable so it must be worthy of inclusion! The source matters of course which is why people making things up and shouting about them or indoctrinating others is not a good source to use.
  • Weasles-a-go-go: "According to some..." no citation.
  • "Creation scientists have put forth several alternative views to the identity of the Neanderthals." Alternative to which views?
  • "This theory is put forth in the book by the author Marvin L. Lubenow". Ah another idea I had one day disguised as a theory no doubt.
Keep but rewrite seems a sound choice. As long as the information is sourced and relevant there is no reason not to have it here. What probably shouldn't show its face here is extreme minority views with few or no references (flying spaghetti monster type stuff). Also, we don't want to unbalance the whole page with an unnecessarily large and overly diplomatic section on bizarre creationist theories Mark 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I would simply delete it. If you are going to keep it it needs a damn good rewrite to be accurate and verifyable. At the moment it's even more fluff than the "in popular culture" sections are. Candy 23:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete the section - All I can say is that I agree with Candy. It was a great article until I got to that section, then I just rolled my eyes and stopped. I think the pop culture section should go to. As a hard-core contributor to firearms articles, I see that crap constantly. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 00:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if I'm going to be lynched for mentioning WP:FRINGE? Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think all of it can go. This is a pretty good article that summarizes the current scientific thinking on the subject. Why should it describe the unverifiable and unscientific views of one group? If we are to include this perspective, should we also add the views of other fringe theorists? That way lies madness. If the Creationist perspective on Neanderthals is considered encyclopedic, put it in its own article, like Flat earth. Don't clutter this one with it. (I think the way that Dinosaurs handles the question of religious views is about as far as we should let that go here.) - Eron Talk 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Unscientific stuff is added all the time, as required by WP:NPOV. Fideism is no better nor worse than Empiricism or Rationalism. Look, I recognise why people have trouble with this - I'm a scientist (or at least, graduate student in the sciences) - but the fact remains that science isn't the final arbitor of truth in a NPOV scheme. Sure, I (and many others) emprace experiment as the ultimate judge of reality - but Wikipedia has specifically rejected the viewpoint already. While creationism is a monumentally retard position, it isn't fringe. Such is an unfortunate fact of life. WilyD 02:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok then here's an idea, like I was saying earlier, we get rid of the section and replace it with a single sentence in the Popular Culture section. We then move the creationist section wholesale and place it in the Creation science article, either somehow integrate it into one of the existing sections there, or just put it in its own section. That way this article isn't cluttered up with creationist stuff and the creationist ideas of Neanderthals will remain on wikipedia, problem solved. So should we do this? --Hibernian 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. The Undue Weight provision clearly states that fringe ideas don't belong. Among paleoanthropologists that study neanderthals, the creationist viewpoint is non existent. JPotter 18:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think that might work. I agree wholeheartedly that fringe ideas don't belong in this article. However, fringe ideas do belong in articles that are about fringe ideas. I have no issue with the Creationist viewpoint on Neanderthals being explained in the article that is about their viewpoints. - Eron Talk 18:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Neanderthaler-Woman.jpg excluded

Image:Neanderthaler-Woman.jpg shows a modern woman (Homo sapiens) with a heavy make-up. It MUST be excluded from this article. On the other hand, Image:Neanderthal child.jpg has the page for research [28], so it has to be validated. --125.201.186.167 03:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • As far as I know, this woman came from BBC news. It is a makeup made by Morten Jacobsen. There is no research back of this image, it is just a scarecrow. Vugluskr 09:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the image in question will be deleted in seven days unless someone provides a detailed source for it. Dionyseus 09:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolved from Homo Heidelbergensis

The Neanderthal evolved from Homo Heidelbergenesis which is discovered in Spain. The species is an adaptation to the cold climate of Europe during about 200,000 years ago. Thoses Heidelbergensis who survive the colder climate evolve and spcialize in new triats making it into the more robust Neanderthal.

Likewise the Homoe Heidelbergensis evolved larger brain found in both the Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. The Homo Sapiens being located by 100,000 years ago in more temperated regions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.165.17.218 (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Um...okay...is this not already included in the main article? :-S Specusci 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interbreeding Edit

Okay, who deleted the stuff about interbreeding? It may be under debate, but it is article-worthy because there is some significant evidence to at least support it, such as the find of the possible neanderthal/sapien hybrid skull. It should be reverted. Specusci 16:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/a/Talk%7ENeanderthal_4e49.html"