Talk:Neanderthal

Almas material

What do editors think about the addition earlier today of the crytozoology material? I don't spend a lot of time in the paleoanthropology articles so I don't know whether there's a consensus whether it's appropriate to add cryptozoological speculation to them. I'd be inclined to leave out such speculation, since there's so much of it, and since the evidence isn't of the same caliber as the research that's generally cited. Maybe as an external link? TimidGuy (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I say leave it out. I can see this section getting out of hand in short order with every manner of big foot sighting and such. JPotter (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't they find a skull once and did a compare with a Frankish skull, to find out it was even more modern? I can't remember the program, it could have been BBC. Let's take it out.Rokus01 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Have deleted. TimidGuy (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

bones some data to merge

numbers := kya = k years ago

• 200: Atapuerca, Pontnewydd Cave, Vértesszöllos, Ehringsdorf, Casal de'Pazzi, Biache, La Chaise, Montmaurin, Prince, Lazaret, Fontéchevade
• 135-45:Krapina, Saccopastore, Malarnaud, Altamura, Gánovce, Denisova, Okladnikov, Pech de l'Azé, Tabun, Kebara, Régourdou, Mt. Circeo, La Ferrassie, Combe Grenal, Erd, La Chapelle-aux Saints 1, Amud, Shanidar, Teshik-Tash, Feldhofer.
• 45-35 La Quina, l'Horus, Zafarraya, Hortus, Vindija, Kulna, Šipka, Saint Césaire, Arcy-Sur-Cure, Bacho Kiro, El Castillo, Bñnolas, Devil's Tower, Le Moustier,
• < 35 początek Chătelperron, Pestera cu Oase 35k, Vindija (Vi208, Vi207 29,28k-32400), Velika Pećina, Lagar Velho.

• - Arcy-sur-Cure, Engis, Figueria Brava, Forbe's Quarry, Guttarsi, Kiyik-Koba, Krapina, Külna, La Ferrassie, Mamontowaja Kuria, Moula, Roc de Marsa, Saccopastore, Saint-Césaire, Shanidor, Spipka, Spy, Starosillya, Steinheim, Sukhaja Meczetka, Tabun, Tata, Teshik-Tash, Zafarraya, Zaskalnaya (Ukraine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Neanderthal in Southern Iberia

I don't understand why the citation was deleted regarding Neanderthal survival after 30,000 years ago, nor do I understand the edit summary for that edit. I hope this can be discussed. The two versions seems to say the same thing, except that it doesn't make sense to me to say that Neanderthal "traits" survived. Later the article uses "traces." is that what is meant? I believe I'll make that change. TimidGuy (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that you mean the latest skeleton with Neanderthal traits. But why delete the citation that also discusses traces of Neanderthal culture? TimidGuy (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC) My mistake. I agree with the deletion of the citation. It doesn't directly deal with evidence of late Neanderthal survival. Will edit the lead to conform to the remaining citation. TimidGuy (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC) neanderthal tools from 24,000 years ago were found and a skeleton from 28,000 was found hope that helps some one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Tool cultures in lead

I don't understand why we need the list of the names of the tool cultures in the lead. To my mind, it's unnecessary detail. The main point of that sentence is indicating the time span of Neanderthals. I think it would be fine to put back the information on bones. And the names of the tool cultures could be put later in the article, if it isn't already there. TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) No response, so I made it a footnote. I like the chronology of the bones. TimidGuy (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

New mDNA study suggests break with H. sapiens about 660,000 kya

Should this, or better yet the original paper in Cell that it is based on, be included somewhere in the article? The first complete mDNA sample from H. Neanderthalis? [1] Edhubbard (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it would be great if you added it. And it also seems like it resolves the mild edit war regarding whether Neanderthal is a species of subspecies. TimidGuy (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

New info, complete mtDNA sequenced

How should this new information be added to the article? From Cell magazine, hot off the presses: A complete mitochondrial (mt) genome sequence was reconstructed from a 38,000 year-old Neandertal individual with 8341 mtDNA sequences identified among 4.8 Gb of DNA generated from ∼0.3 g of bone. Analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally establishes that the Neandertal mtDNA falls outside the variation of extant human mtDNAs, and allows an estimate of the divergence date between the two mtDNA lineages of 660,000 ± 140,000 years. Of the 13 proteins encoded in the mtDNA, subunit 2 of cytochrome c oxidase of the mitochondrial electron transport chain has experienced the largest number of amino acid substitutions in human ancestors since the separation from Neandertals. There is evidence that purifying selection in the Neandertal mtDNA was reduced compared with other primate lineages, suggesting that the effective population size of Neandertals was small.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 21:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be really good to get this into the article. I don't have time at the moment to think of how to integrate it. The most pressing need right now is to correct a number of errors that were introduced into the article in the last 24 hours. The person who added the content is quite knowledgeable, but English isn't his native language and I noticed spelling and grammatical errors. Hope someone can take a look at these edits. I may have a little time tomorrow. And I hope he holds off on making more, until these edits can be refined. Feel free to add this new study yourself. TimidGuy (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

38k is the mtDNA of Vindia HN ? (the same bone DNA cloned into bacteria library byEM Rubin &a)

1. Cytochrome c is a highly conserved protein across the spectrum of species,
2. both humans and chimpanzees have the identical molecule,
3. rhesus monkeys possess cytochromes differing by one amino acid.

could you drop the sequence string either above is not true or they sequenced something else. I hope (the divergent amino acid substitutions} is not in cytochrome b :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

full thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Move sentences here for rewriting

I didn't understand this, partly because I didn't understand the English. Let's see if we can rewrite it.

In spacial Neanderthal range was found specimen dated to 5.3 kya having also similar anatomical characteristic. Safely may be estimated that this characteristic is persistent in major H.N. area from 5300 to 0 ya.

Also, seems like we'd need a source and more detail. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

1. H.N. = the subject of this article.
2. In spacial Neanderthal range = the area where HN specimens are found
3. was found specimen = was found specimen
4. dated to 5.3 kya = that object was 'made' 5300 year ago. +/-
5. having also similar anatomical characteristic. =the anatomical characteristic in previous sentence.
6. Safely may be estimated that this characteristic is persistent in major H.N. area from 5300 to 0 ya. = we are sure, you are sure, anybody is.

I hope all is understandable. If not point to point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have a source for this? If such a specimen exists dated to 5,300 years ago, why would it be estimated that this characteristic would persist to today? Since the previous sentence references both Neanderthal and modern humans, it's not clear which this specimen was. And based on syntax, I presume the characteristic that's being referenced is MC1R. Is that correct? (I have to admit to some confusion, and I guess I'm assuming that other readers may be similarly confused. Which is why I moved it here.) TimidGuy (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes i do. Plese say what originaly you did not understand so the text may be rephrased to be easier.

did you overlooked a point? 5 having also similar anatomical characteristic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Partly it's that the second clause in the previous sentence is itself very cryptic. The logical relationship between the two clauses isn't clear to a nonspecialized reader like myself. If you could perhaps elaborate here, explaining this to me a bit, then I can rephrase. TimidGuy (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you could quote the strings which apper 'cryptic' i will try to 'undecode' it (like turning option --verbose on me). 71.201.241.2 (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This clause: " however, the mutation in the MC1R gene arose independently of the mutation which causes a similar pigmentation pattern in modern humans." I don't understand what it's saying. What's the MC1R gene? And why is it adduced here? Perhaps clarifying that will be a good first step in making clear the material you propose to add after that clause. TimidGuy (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

W: however, the mutation in the MC1R gene arose independently

T: I don't understand what it's saying.

71: Its not my (part of) sentence (not inserted by me). Perhaps (if it is true) it may be a deiferent genetic lineage or deduced from diferent patern of mutation or SNP (may be to aDNA error). But i will sugest to mark it {fact}. Or searching who inserted it and ask that coeditor for sources.

T: What's the MC1R gene?

71: from W: A gene encoding Melanocortin 1 receptor = MCR1. 71.201.241.2 (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Progress. I deleted that clause, so now the referent of your sentence is clear. So what kind of specimen was found 5,000 years ago and what suggested it had red hair? Was it a Neanderthal specimen? How could that be, if as the article says, the latest Neanderthal presence dates to 25,000 years ago? TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

tool cultures in lead

I don't understand why the tool cultures have been added to the lead. Please see WP:LEAD. Please explain why this information is important to the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

More moved here for discussion -- mDNA

We really shouldn't be adding something like this, which is meaningless to a general reader, without more context.

"4 amino acid substitutions in mtDNA translated changed COX2 protein of Cytochrome c oxidase subunit II. Human amino acid on HS/HN differing positions: 22, 54, 95 and 146 in COX2 is most similar to Baboon/Macaque while Neanderthal mtDNA decode is more similar to primates proteins of Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan. RAO assumtion is based on matrilinear replacement of stonger Neanderthal by weeker but more social/modern wave of H.S. from Africa."

Please let's discuss. TimidGuy (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks added. Is it clear now ? 71.201.241.2 (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. It's meaningless to a general reader, who has no idea what this is talking about or what it means. There's no point in having it there if we can't translate it into something meaningful. TimidGuy (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say, I'm no biologist or anything, but I've got to agree with TimidGuy here. The information you are quoting seems applicable to a journal publication, but it should DEFINITELY be worded to say what it means in layman's terms... Wikiwikikid (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I get a notion of similarity to earlier primates & that there's genetic evidence; beyond that, "Huh?" TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 15:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for the feedback. This IP seems quite knowledgeable and hopefully we can work out something that is meaningful to a general reader. Here's his latest version, which I just removed from the article and which I still think is too technical.

The same paper show 4 amino acids substitutions in mtDNA translated to changed COX2 protein of Cytochrome c oxidase subunit II. Human amino acid on HS/HN differing positions: 22, 54, 95 and 146 in COX2 is most similar to Baboon/Macaque while Neanderthal mtDNA decode is more similar to Hominidae proteins of Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan. RAO hyphothesis assumption is based on matrilinear replacement of stronger Neanderthal by weaker but more social/modern wave of H.S. from Africa; however Baboon and Macaque are even behind great apes family but more distant gene transitions are known to biology.

Once the general point is clear and details that are too technical eliminated in favor of more general language, we can put it back. TimidGuy (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"from a 38,000-year-old bone"--what happens if interbreeding occured in an area 37,000 years ago, or 30,000 years ago? One fragment from the early modern human settlement era is no proof that interbreeding did not occur. It may even have occured 40,000 years ago--just not in the area that bone came from. Considering the very low population density of both modern humans and neandertals, we can't assume mixed genes from a specific area would have spread quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.118.240 (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A try

The same paper showed four amino acid translations in mitochondrial DNA. It suggests Homo sapens is a closer relative to baboons and [or?] macaques, while Neandertal is nearer chimpanzee, gorilla, or [and?] orangutan. The Recent African Origin hyphothesis is based on matrilinear replacement of Neanderthal by H.sap.

As for

"replacement of Neanderthal by weaker but more social/modern wave of H.S. from Africa; however Baboon and Macaque are even behind great apes family but more distant gene transitions are known to biology."

I can only repeat, "Huh?" Dr. Moreau ^555-SOLO 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

On the origin of specious?

"Neanderthal skulls were first discovered in Engis, Belgium (1829) and in Forbes' Quarry" So why isn't H.nean. named for Engis? I presume it's because they weren't recognized as sufficiently different. Some explanation is in order. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The importance of finds may not always be realised, particularly when the bones are fragmentary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Another question about the origin of Neanderthal....It seems to be infered that Neanderthals did indeed evolve Europe; from the information provided on this page it is almost impossible not to come to that conclusion, but yet nowhere is it stated explicitly that Neanderthal is a species that originated in Europe. For instance, I see two well documented inferences -- (1) Neanderthal traits are said to have appeared first in Europe; (2) Map of neanderthal sites points exclusively to Europe. It is put forward in the tool section that H.erectus and H.heidelbergensis are the ancestors of H.Neanderthals; it is, however, undocumented. H.erectus seems like a likely candidate, but without a credible source, I simply assume that someone came to this conclusion by his or her own logic. What got me thinking about this was the previous understanding I held, that all hominids evolved in east Africa; though, I don't know why I thought this. Also, if it is the case (that they evolved in Europe), exactly where in Europe did they evolve? It seems like there would have had to been some smaller region that acted as an "evolutionary hub" (though perhaps not...)

Likely this is another one of those things were knowone knows for what the deal is for sure. Even so, as I was trying to piece together human evolution and the progression of hominins, this was one of the obstacles I ran into. In that case, even if nothing is known for sure, it might be helpful to add a section about Neanderthals own history (migration, evolutionary ancestors, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahoevel (talk • contribs) 08:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can class that a separate evolution, more like a specialization, akin the diff tween horses & zebras. That's in line with the diff environment & with the evo of skin color changes in northern-adapted H. sap. groups. I wouldn't be too surprised to find H. nean. in Africa; the Eur finds only prove no H. nean. fossils have been found more southerly yet.

A bit of clarity on the origins of H. nean. wouldn't be a bad idea, if we've got people not getting it; per Harshaw's Law, that's a failure to communicate. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 10:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

These both seem like good suggestions -- explain why it's named after Neander and not Engis, and origins -- if sources can be found. There had been a couple sentences in the article about Neanderthal evolving in East Africa, but someone deleted it. I can't find it right now. It didn't have a source and seemed doubtful. TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're getting at it from a different direction in the genetics debate above, i.e., is H. nean. ancestral? If so, H. nean. would (I think) be subsumed under (for instance) H. hab. & the "origin of H. nean." question becomes moot. Unless I've misread you...

On "fragmentary", that was my presumption; I do think it needs addressing. Not because I'd advocate a change in ID, but because why the earlier finds weren't recognized is significant. Or at least intersting, 'cause I recall the Neandertal skeleton was originally thought to belong to an old man, which accounts for the common depiction of H. nean. in a stooped posture. (Or have I conflated things?) In any case, I think the why bears clarification. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't keep up

Editor 71.201.241.2 continues to add lots of content that is problematic, because of the English and because it's too technical and is meaningless to a general reader. I don't have time to go through the many many edits. Not sure what to do. TimidGuy (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I reluctantly reverted good faith edits because they were uncommented, but what seems obvious to him is out of my depth, beyond my scope, and pushing the envelope for a general encyclopedia. But he is much too knowledgable to lose. Autodidactyl (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a general encyclopaedia, it's both a general encyclopaedia and a specialist encyclopedia. Try moving stuff to Neanderthal/Draft or Neanderthal/todo or just here to the talk to process. SPinoffs like Anatomy of Neanderthals, Discoveries of Neanderthals or whatever else can always be made when there's too much quantity. WilyD

The page has been semi-protected for two weeks to try to get a handle on this issue. This will also promote the sort of solution that WilyD offered. Tan ǀ 39 15:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wily, as you can see above, we've tried moving confusing things here to discuss, but the IP doesn't participate. He started to but then sort of gave up and went back to editing. Thanks, Tan, for semiprotecting. TimidGuy (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the Section that I reverted from the introduction. i hope this can be used in a separate section Autodidactyl (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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 the Levallois technique. Mousterian tools were often produced using soft hammer percussion, with hammers made of materials like bones, antlers, and wood, rather than hard hammer percussion, using stone hammers. Near the end of the time of the Neanderthals, they created the Châtelperronian tool style, considered more advanced than that of the Mousterian. They either invented the Châtelperronian themselves or borrowed elements from the incoming modern humans who are thought to have created the Aurignacian (though some research suggests Neanderthals may actually have contributed to the latter.)

Hmm.. to link the Aurignacian to H. neanderthalensis is a stretch. To link them to the Gravettian would seem to be pretty far off. Furthermore, the Lagar Velho child is highly dubious and it is far from unequivocally a mix between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens. The archaic traits it can be argued to exhibit are furthermore not autapomorphic to H. neanderthalensis. Adding to this is that recent DNA analysis (as is seen in the text) does not suggest mixing - which of course could have changed later in principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.87.114 (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, keep it all, just somewhere else, til us less-knowledgable peons can get a handle on what it means. ;) (I don't speak for anybody but me on that one. :D) I'd hate to put off somebody who knows his stuff simply for style reasons; too bad it's an IP, or I'd be suggesting a comment on his talk to translate, first. And it might be somebody who's got access to the journals is just paraphrasing it in without really getting it; hard to say. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you trying 'in good faith' find out the truth perhaps i can ask for help to wording off the coincidental/non_coincidental host switching from Macaque and sourced here. Do you think it is relevant to this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume this comment is related to thread above in which Trekphiler apparently successfully reworded the first part of your addition. What's not clear regarding the clause on baboons and macaques is whether that's specifically related to Neanderthal. Before we can help with rewording, we need to know that it's not an original observation by you that this is somehow relevant here, per WP:OR. Maybe we should continue this discussion in that thread. TimidGuy (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

saved interesting section for rewrite in wikipedic english before attempting to undo edit (edit conflict).

'==Anatomy==

ComparedBBC website post that compared to modern humans, Neanderthals were generally shorter and had more robust, but is surprising that many textbooks portray a wrong picture of Neanderthal height as being "very short" or "just over 5 feet". Based on 45 long bones from maximally 14 males and 7 females, Neanderthals' height averages between 164 and 168 (males) resp. 152 to 156 cm (females). This height is indeed 12-14 cm lower than the height of post-WWII Europeans, but compared to Europeans some 20,000 or 100 years ago, it is practically identical or even slightly higher. Considering the body build of Neanderthals, new body weight estimates show that they are only slightly above the cm/weight or the Body Mass Index of modern Americans or Canadians.' Autodidactyl (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope to clarify this phrase

Here's another phrase that I don't understand:

present day DNA (mtDNA, nDNA) sequencing to find differences in ancient signals in subpopulation gene pools.

Mainly the word "signals." Could we rephrase this? TimidGuy (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of helpful literature to explain what the signal mean in above context. If you have more specific (let it say clearly: challenging) question do not hesitate to ask. If not me (it depends), somebody will dedicate more time.

Give me the answer to Qa: what is the average hight of global human population ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, it would really help if you could explain or rewrite this so a general reader would understand it. Regarding average height, we simply report what the sources say. If they use this, then so do we. TimidGuy (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving here a debate removed from the lead so it can be placed elsewhere

I've deleted these two sentences from the lead:

The prospect of coexistence as two reproductively separated species may be mistaken, due to misdating of modern (5ky old) human bones. This continues to be reported as correct in popular mass media.

It doesn't seem like the lead is the place to get into the debate regarding interbreeding. The context of these sentences didn't make any suggestion either way regarding that issue, so I don't understand why it was inserted. TimidGuy (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Eaters of the Dead and Pop Culture

I find it hard to believe there is no reference to Michael Crichton's 'Eaters of the Dead' under his section. He produces extensive detail in his novel alleging that the 'Wendol' described in his book are a tribe of Homo Neanderthalensis having survived to recent times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.161.140 (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Neanderthal" as term of abuse

When did the term start developing its negative connotations - usually used of a male's attitudes towards women (in general or particular)?

Given that the structure of Neanderthal society is unknown surely the term is unappropriate - why not (historically known culture of choice)? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC) in my opinion neanderthal should really be a good thing to be called considering they were stronger and had larger brains than homo sapeins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Neanderthals were stronger than us, but slower and had little running resistance. In addiction you have to remember that Neanderthal brain was heavier and bigger than ours, but that doesn't mean that they were more intelligent. The term "neanderthal" started to develope negative connotations because at the beginning of the XX century archaeologists tought that these men were really primitive and ape-like. Xzn1989 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.237.254 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

please resolve contradiction in quotation

For Richard G. Klein is becoming increasingly clear that the Neanderthals and their modern human successors did not mix and coexisted with modern humans up to 15,000 years after Homo sapiens had migrated into Europe. In the same source abstract is writen oposite : it remains unclear why they disappeared shortly after modern humans arrived in Europe Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner believed that the population of Neanderthals was never much more than 10,000 individuals.

I don't see a contradiction. 15,000 years is "shortly" in natural history. thx1138 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Neanderthal disappeared from most of their range after the arrival of modern humans, but a small segment of the population lasted considerably longer in southwestern Europe and coexisted with modern humans. I'm glad this sentence is receiving attention and that some work has been done on the article in the past couple days. A lot of things needed fixing after a round of heavy editing a few weeks ago. TimidGuy (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

From a natural history POV, it's not, but we're aiming for a general audience, so "shortly" isn't really the best word. Also, I don't see the connection to the 10K #; IIRC, the estimates for H. sap. run in this range, too, & I'd bet for many of the same reasons: incapacity to support larger pop on foraging before the intro of systemic agriculture. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Neanderthal intelligence

An interesting article in Science Daily debunking the stupid Neanderthal myth.[2] What about adding something about this in the lead? Maybe: "Although Neanderthals have sometimes been portrayed as dumb brutes, research on their stone tools suggests they were as intelligent as modern humans." TimidGuy (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wery interresting. 2 caveats. Is it provable? Is it true? I'd bet, given a general improvement in diet, education, & tool use over the last 20 millenia, we're a lot smarter now than Neandertal, on average. We'd have to be. Smarter then, maybe not. (Which is what you meant, isn't it?) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your comment raises a good point: as I understand it, archaeologists use "modern humans" in very general sense to refer to any population morphologically the same as contemporary humans. So in this context, "modern humans" means those living 40,000 years ago. The reader wouldn't know that. So it would need to be rephrased, possibly: "Although Neanderthals have sometimes been portrayed as dumb brutes, recent research on their stone tools suggests they were as intelligent as the modern humans who eventually replaced them." TimidGuy (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

New investigations debunk longheld textbook beliefs of inferior intelectual capabilities by showing that early stone tool technologies developed by Homo sapiens, were no more efficient than those used by Neanderthals. ? Rokus01 (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the term of art is "anatomically modern humans". Which suggests if somebody who knows that (moi) is making the mistake, somebody who doesn't is even more likely to. I think something like "as intelligent as contemporary H.sap." is better, avoiding both confusion over "modern humans" & debate over "replaced" (which we've got enough of now), & add to that "debunk long-held beliefs" (leave off textbooks, it's also Hollywood), & reverse the emphasis on tool tech to "no less efficient than H.sap." With that in mind, I think you've got it, Rokus01. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Both are good suggestions. Maybe I'll try adding this to the lead. Feel free to revert or modify, or move it elsewhere. TimidGuy (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Brain size [3]. The paleolithic Homos Sapiens had also bigger brain size than global average but, the population in some European areas till today have large brain size. The effect of averaging (800 - 1800 ccm) is today 1300 ccm. Again this is only average worldwide Homo brain size. Unfortunately the data of 19,20 century Homo's brain sizes are almost entirely quoted in older sources. 71.239.229.11 (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We had consensus to put the recent research on intelligence in the lead. I'm curious why you moved it to the Trivia section. TimidGuy (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

FoxP2 material for discussion

I'm moving here some material recently added regarding the FoxP2 gene.

Past research suggests the gene's modern human variant evolved fewer than 200,000 years ago. Now scientists find the Neanderthal FOXP2 gene is identical to ours. The ancestors of Neanderthals diverged from ours roughly 300,000 years ago, according to the latest thinking. Some studies have suggested that the two species might have intermingled after that, however. "It is possible that Neanderthals spoke just like we do," paleogeneticist Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, told LiveScience. Krause noted that some might suggest that interbreeding or "gene flow" (aka sex) between modern humans and Neanderthals led to us having FOXP2 in common. "However, we see no evidence for gene flow in the Y chromosome sequences," he said. Instead, the modern human and Neanderthal Y chromosomes are substantially different genetically.

The information on FoxP2 could maybe be developed somewhat, but we'd need sources using proper citations, and we'd need to use appropriate style, such as avoiding use of first person. We'd need to begin by identifying the point here that we're trying to add. The article may beg the question whether FoxP2 is introgression or convergent evolution or inheritance from a common ancestor or interbreeding. But ideally, we'd reference scholarly sources. Krause's comments aren't really that edifying, just seemingly tossing out possibilities. There are so many unresolved issues with this, such as the possibility of contamination and the likelihood that other genes are also involved in language, I guess I'd be inclined not to make too much of this beyond what the article says. TimidGuy (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(Corrected typo for clarity Jackiespeel (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Neanderthals pubis ::: what was inherited ?

The anatomical difference may be due to changes in mating position. The preferred by large brainer birth pelvis moved pubis bone up. So the possible sexual behavior modification was changed due to this anatomical fact.

Even if Neanderthals extinct the nonanimalistic behaviour may be picked up by hidesaping incoming African Homos and with some substantial spatial differentiatial preferences used till today.

But since we can observe in nature (internet) enormous quantity of those (and surounding) anatomical body parts, it is easy to distinguish that beside flat and low some pictures present bunny hills in the area where the pubic bone moved up in Neanderthal, making possible to wider opening at birth for larger brained children.

The other aspect easy to observe (see internet) is the anatomical future stil preexisting in Africa population where pelvis bone morphology stretching the-back a-back to make easier the more evolutionary rooted way to mixing genes into zygote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.11 (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain this in Wiki-English? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing characteristics

Since this has gotten changed twice now, let me point out my objection (since it's evidently not clear...). The 50K/30KYA dates are end dates, by which time the characteristics had disappeared. It may've been in progress until c30KYA, but by that time, it was pretty well done. Unless you're can demonstrate, & source, continuing changes after the 30KYA mark, leave it alone. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.11 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

:Not , read next 3 sentences. What was writen about Lagar Vehlo specimen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.11 (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the next three sentences and can't figure out what you're trying to achieve with your change. I've put it back the way it was because the English isn't correct. "had been disappearing" would usually refer to a broad period of time, for example, "had been disappearing for x number of years." But what follows is a specific time. If you can explain, then maybe we can edit the sentence to mean what you say. TimidGuy (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I get it. It looks like a misunderstanding of the text. The Lagar Vehlo find is dated 24.5KYA, but H. nean. characteristics "disappeared" 30KYA. What seems to be the problem is mistaking "characteristics" for "populations". H. nean. didn't vanish, but new characteristics did (or appeared in H. sap. pops).

OT, that does make me wonder about interbreeding, or there'd be some characteristics shared, no? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

1) You may be on good trail. Here characteristic is equal to traits the last enigma is more explained here. 2) To Timid: what is x if x = (50-30)*1000 ? Could x be (is it?) for x number of years ? There is much more but for now think only about that litle 'homework'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.11 (talk)

In this vein, "The magnitude on particular trait changes with 300,000 years timeline"? Can somebody clarify? Is it over the course of 300KY, or after the end of? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the former. Great cleanup of the article! Really appreciate your work on this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

TYVM. Did I goof with the "breast men" bit? I noticed afterward there was some doubt it belonged, but it made sense to me, so I left it in. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you hungry?

"almost exclusively carnivorous" This has been bugging me for awhile, so let me pose it. Is there evidence this contributed to their extinction? First, H. sap is omnivorous. Second, & the thing that got me thinking, is the relationship between sabretooth & their prey; it's believed, FWI read, when Mammoth (HBC or otherwise) died out, the cats (which relied on them) did, too. Could/did the same happen to H. nean.? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

makes sense but cant a modern vegetarian eat meat if he has to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop (talk • contribs) 23:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Except Neanderthal might not have had the teeth to eat anything but meat (I confess, I have no real idea), so not the same at all. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

my wording meant if the neanderthals ate only meat and had only those teeth then they would die but they didnt they ate 95 percent meat and had sharper teeth which could change in a few generations of need —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

canibali feast ?

look at the logic : we have bones of butchered neandertals. We know 'Africans' comming from Israel (scientific term Levant).

consider basic crime investigation.

• Victim Neanderthals
• tools of 'modern human'

• question. Did the six Neanderthals butchered themselves ? If so who eated them.
• if not who butchered them: The Africans coming from Israel. See cebara cave etc.

• why you reverted this valid concern: hmm.. to cover up 'obvious conclusion' .---obvious given how it is written, But I do not belive it. There is simpler explanation. Only sick mind can go to extremes "rape, cannibalism" in science - but i do not believe that scientists can get a chance in this website for any logic argumentation.

read more:

Cannibal feasts? In 1939 Guattari Cave on Monte Circeo, Italy, yielded stone tools and a skull of a rather heavily built Neandertal from the last glacial (about 50 thousand years old). What made this particular specimen a cause célèbre, though, was less the fossil itself than the supposed context. The original discovery had been made accidentally, by a workman, in almost complete darkness, and the skull – one of many bones lying on the cave floor – had been picked up and replaced on the ground by the time the paleontologist Alberto Blanc was called in. A reconstruction by Blanc showed the cranium lying inverted, a gaping hole in its base pointing straight up, within a ‘crown of stones’.

“Ignoring the fact that the cave floor was covered with stones and bones, and that here was no certainty about exactly where the skull had come from, Blanc built on the tradition of Krapina [Gorjanovic-Kramberger, 1906] and the Drachenloch to spring to the conclusion that the Guattari skull represented the remains of a cannibal feast. The individual had been killed by a blow to the right side of the head; the head had been severed from the body and placed upside down in a ring of stones; the skull base had been broken open to extract the brain (exactly as the anatomist Franz Weidenreich had suggested had happened to the Peking Man skulls from Zhoukoudian): the empty braincase had been used as a drinking cup before being replaced on the floor; and the broken animal bones scattered around the cave had accumulated as a result of further sacrifices associated with this bizarre cannibalistic ritual. We know now that Guattari Cave was in fact an ancient hyena den, and that the Neanderthal skull was simply one more of the numerous mammal bones with which it was littered” (p. 101). Actually, the claim that Neandertals were cannibals is far much older and based on a tragic misunderstanding. Trinkaus & Shipman (1993, pp. 104- 5) tell this story as follows:

“In his writings about La Naulette [a Belgian cave discovered in 1866], Dupont explicitly denied an extraordinary claim about the Neandertal fossils that had never yet been made (in print): that they were the remains of a cannibalistic feast. He argued that the fossils were naturally broken and located within a cave but were not associated with worked stones or hearths – items for which he deliberately searched. For all his care, he uncovered only broken animal bones and the three human bones. Perhaps he was indirectly responding to the charge of cannibalism that has been raised before, by a Monsieur Spring, who was writing of the more modern finds at Chauvaux, Belgium. Spring had found shattered human and animal bones mixed together in hearths and took this as logical evidence that both animals and humans had been treated as food. But Dupont’s finds did not include such evidence.

Bizarrely, the claim that Neandertals were cannibals started here – with a case that particularly did not suggest cannibalism – and has persisted, lingering about Neandertal remains like a poisonous miasma, until the present day. A purported summary of Dupont’s findings, written in English by C. Carter Blake [1867], stated that Dupont believed the La Naulette remains showed evidence of cannibalism. Was it mistranslation, misunderstanding, or carelessness? Then, in 1930, Ales Hrdlicka, a physical anthropologist at the Smithsonian, again attributed to Dupont the claim that the La Naulette remains showed signs of cannibalism”.

source: by by Johan M.G. van der Dennen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.60 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I was just glancing over the article and got pretty discouraged. It needs so much cleanup, and I don't have time to work on it. The article has become quite skewed toward the view of the aggressive IPs who've been editing, and it's filled with their nonstandard English and nonencyclopedic commentary. I'm sorry to see this happen to what had been a pretty good article. TimidGuy (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree... I have reverted to where I think is a reasonable place to start attempting a cleanup. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe semi-protection would help. Shambalala (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

you deleting ref from PNAS and replacing by tabloids pop. I know, some knowledge is required to understand scientific jargon. But your UtherSRG edits deleting tons of best referenced thesis is clear denial of science, = vandalism. Vdr826 (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

ps: If you do not understand something would you be so polite and ask? perhaps somebody will like to educate.

So they again blocked the artucle. I see you added 4 credible ref. I Added 20 or more. Some may hangs till today. This is cabal not a knowledge bulding. Thank you again for participation. You see now yourself how disproporttional are the declaration and practice. to look for motive I can imagine some.

• religius , deep devotion to jevish values - (those who do reverts are involved in dvid star wikiproject)
• the kebara cave is they hebara. (located in israel)
• if nenderthal survived the claim to the to other Arab theritory will be weaker. If the European continiu from paeolite only they bouncing whithiot land foe 2.5 milenia. So it will be cool to rhave some eocide to get back to Eu, even if paleolithic. (the complex of Deuthe strafe)
• also now enigmatic African are those (assumably in this art) feasted on nenderthal flesh. So is better to put other in position of bluth drinking and bluth bth.
• i just think there is a difference in genetics and they rely do not care about truth and logic. brain size may be a reson or some kind of transcendental affinity. They have tu use force-(block/ban) the only remedy left for stupid.

Call me, regrds R.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.60 (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you UtherSRG. Though I don't have much available time, I'm willing to help those who feel that relevant material was deleted. And I think other editors are too. Threads above show sincere, good-faith attempts to translate incomprehensible additions into meaningful content. Because so much of the material that was added was incomprehensible, often due to the limited English skills of the contributors, a better was to proceed will be to add proposed material here and then work together to refine it before adding it directly to the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: to help those who feel that relevant material was deleted

How do you can help? Do you see lock? [4]

You wrote: incomprehensible, often due to the limited English skills

Do the titles from PNAS Science etc, deleted by praised by you admin (Thank you UtherSRG) are incomprehensible? Are the deleted quotes from those papers incomprehensible ? Remember, when you say "something is incomprehensible" you estimating comprehensibility in context of your own comprehension. Is the last sentence true, yes/no ? or again incomprehensible :|

to be constructive; I willing to show helping hand. Wrote what was beyond (your or imaginary) comprehension. Signal possible ambiguity (the other ways of interpretation) you finding in given phrase(s). Form clear question which could be answered with (the best binary) precision. Then we may help you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.77 (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of what was added just didn't make sense because of the problems with spelling, grammar, diction, and syntax. It's not simply a matter of ambiguity. My suggestion is that you post here material you would like to add, and other editors will help rewrite it so that it's comprehensible. Also, the material may have skewed the article somewhat, so we'd need to discuss that too. TimidGuy (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote, please. Let see if text is workable. You post one qoute I will explain. One by one. Give first one. But only one. OK?

Cleanup what it was.

In one deletion admin of this website balnked text referenced by following sources.

1. doi=10.1038/363252a0 PNAS
2. doi=10.1038/nature02690
3. doi=10.1073/pnas.0510005103
4. doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.08.010
5. doi=10.1016/j.cell.2008.06.021
6. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080807/full/news.2008.1026.html#B1
7. doi=10.1038/sj.hdy.6800852
8. doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020105
9. doi=10.1016/j.gde.2006.09.006 journal=Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev
10. DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5425.195a
11. DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5432.1355f
12. DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5424.31
13. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2004.11.016
14. http://anthropologylabs.umn.edu/Zilhao_2006_Evol_Anth.pdf
15. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060908093606
16. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702214104
17. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030175
18. doi:10.1086/302052 [5]
19. doi=10.1073/pnas.0608443103 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.77 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it me, or have we just been accused of being members of the International Jewish Conspiracy? (Say, where's my copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?) Fox Mulder ^{call me, Scully} 04:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, actually. I guess one can't reference WP:NPA if one can't understand what's being said. :-) I feel like we've been generous in our efforts to help rewrite the material these IPs want to add, and in our offers of help. It's beyond me why they'd be so snide. TimidGuy (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote, please. Let see if text is workable. You post one qoute I will explain. One by one. Give first one. But only one. OK? (nothing not understand = all understand) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.198.190 (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Human_brain#Brain_size will have to be shrink. Somebody contraband facts there. (stop proceeding bigheads conspiracy & theory) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.198.190 (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel a little like I've walked into an episode of "Get Smart", & I'm Max. Yerrow Kraw ^{cone of silence} 19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

About the bilabial click thing

This may be relevant to speech as the mentalis muscle contributes to moving the lower lip and is used to voice a bilabial click.

Most extant languages don't have a bilabial click, or hardly any click sounds for that matter. So I'm sort of struggling to find the relevance of this to hypothetical language ability. If it is relevant to expressing or developing language, this should be properly cited itself, if it isn't, then it doesn't belong in the article. Shinobu (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Click languages are quite common in Southern Africa, and do not require much use of the vocal cords.--MacRusgail (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

africa may use clicks but no eurasian language i know of does and thats were the neanderthals were —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop (talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sloping cranium

I was wondering if someone could point out the differences between a modern human who has a sloping cranium and a Neanderthal's sloping cranium. The way this article is laid out (modern humans have this head type while...) it suggests that no modern humans have sloping craniums. If there is to be a diagram (or picture at least) indicating that modern humans have straight foreheads then shouldn't there be some explanation as to why some humans don't have straight foreheads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.155.78 (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, do archeologists ever date skeletons that look like modern human, or do they just overlook those and concentrate on the wierd and strange? *picks up normal skull* "Oh this is normal" *throws it back on the ground* What if it was 30,000 years old? Anyone bother to date it?98.165.6.225 (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess it's a matter of degree; as I understand it, H. nean. crania sloped steeply in all cases, where H.sap slopes much less, as an average (anecdotal cases falling at either end of the curve of expected variability). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But there are recorder modern humans with sloping heads steeper than some Neandethal's found. Can someone explain the difference? 213.94.233.223 (talk)

Elephant in the room

Am I the only one to notice that the supposed range of Neanderthals, i.e. Europe, some parts of central Asia and the Mediterranean/Middle East happens to coincide quite nicely with the traditional home of Caucasians? I suppose that mentioning races isn't very pc just now, but this strikes me as a little too convenient. It might explain why white folk have such a range of hair colours and eye colours not generally found in other varieties of human.

I hope no one mistakes me for a member of the far right - far from it! It's not entirely a flattering claim this! --MacRusgail (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it is the elephant in the room, it is the foundation of the multiregional hypothesis or hybrid origin hypothesis. It should be noted that a variety of hair colors are found around the world in regions where there were no Neanderthals. unsigned - by User:Mpondopondo

Not really - I'm aware that red hair can be found in various parts of the world, such as amongst black Africans, Polynesians/Micronesians, but I don't know of any other variety of human which has such a wide variety of (natural) hair colour. The predominant human hair colour is black (or very dark brown), but in Europe, especially the north, other hair colours are extremely common. As far as eye colour goes - again, Caucasians have several varieties, whereas the majority of humans tend to have brown eyes (unless they are albino).

Personally, I think that the idea of Neanderthals as a different species is a modern one. Cro-Magnons encountering them would probably have considered them just another tribe, and seen them as different, but not another animal necessarily. --MacRusgail (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is true that Europeans have a greater variety of hair and eye colors than is found elsewhere. However the variant mc1r gene, which is related to hair and eye color, of the Neanderthals has not been found in european or any other human populations. In other words, the red hair of some europeans evolved independently and could be an example of convergent evolution. This is according to the University of Barcelona study.Mpondopondo (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware about the red hair business (read it in this very article)... however, it does seem curious that the traditional range of white Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals fit together very closely.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily very closely. Neanderthals never extended into Northern Europe (Scandinavia) which is the likely region of origin of light hair colors. Mpondopondo (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the definition of Northern Europe. As I understand it, most of it was covered in ice until around 10,000 and pretty much uninhabitable. Northern Europe would have been colonised from central Europe, or at least but Circumpolar Peoples. It would have been difficult to colonise it from anywhere else. Across the icy edge of the north Atlantic, possibly. This letter from New Scientist discusses it although it mentions the red hair business.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Neanderthals evolved in Europe over a period of 500,000 years, there were several interglacials during this period. Northern Europe was not always covered uninhabitable.No evidence of Neanderthal contribution to modern humans Mpondopondo (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but I am confident that there is definitely “an elephant in the room”, namely the strange need of some to defend the Neanderthals against moral judgments of modern human sensibilities. I think it has to do with the Hobbes vs. Rousseau, visions of nature, if you know what I mean. Please try to "catch my drift": I have here a cartoon from the New Yorker of the classic "assent of man" parade of human evolution, in which the Neanderthal is screaming "Elitist!" at modern man. There was an ad for a show in the paper in my town recently called "Defending the Caveman." There are those strange Geico commercials with the same theme. Look at the descriptions of the popular culture depictions in the article. Look at the history of this article, and the touchy, emotional debate at times. Something wierd that has more to do with our own psychology than just facts is going on here, something that is interfering with a normal assessment of the cold hard facts. There are many examples in the article and this is what I think is behind many troubles with the article. For example, “Charges of Cannibalism”. Why “charges” instead of “claims” or “evidence”? No one calls evidence that non-hominid species eat each other "charges of cannibalism". There is something about the Neanderthals that makes them problematic in this way. Compare with other hominid articles, where evidence of cannibalism is simply accepted. Chrisrus (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

is it forbiden subject ? 71.201.243.75 (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Language issues

It's long been assumed that Neanderthal vocal tracts were not very practical - an idea receding just now. But isn't it worth pointing out that much of human communication even today is non-vocal? I'm talking about everything from facial expressions and body language right up to sign language. --MacRusgail (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this paragraph:

"Neurological evidence for potential speech in neanderthalensis exists in the form of the hypoglossal canal. The canal of neanderthalensis is the same size or larger than in modern humans, which are significantly larger than the canal of australopithecines and modern chimpanzees. The canal carries the hypoglossal nerve, which controls the muscles of the tongue. This indicates that neanderthalensis had vocal capabilities similar to modern humans.[48] A research team from the University of California, Berkeley, led by David DeGusta, suggests that the size of the hypoglossal canal is not an indicator of speech. His team's research, which shows no correlation between canal size and speech potential, shows there are a number of extant non-human primates and fossilized australopithecines which have equal or larger hypoglossal canal.[49]"

This paragraph seems to be stating two theories, the former favoring that homo neanderthalensis had language, and the latter disfavoring that neanderthalensis had language. This argument can go on and on, but I think it is safe to say that Neanderthal man had a "form" of linguistic communication although not as developed as we know language today. It's true that the hypoglossal canal in neanderthalensis can be the same size as in archaic and modern homo sapiens, but the focus of the argument should be on the hyoid bone also. The article correctly states that the hyoid bone of the Kebara Cave neanderthal is identical in size to that of modern humans. This may indicate that neanderthalensis was capable of speech.

Aside from the arguments of physicality, Richard G. Klein in 2004 doubted that neanderthals possessed a fully modern language because of the fossil record of archaic humans and their stone tool kit. Klein argued that by comparing the stone tools of the archaic homos and the modern humans, we could determine whether there was complex speech. This still remains controversial within cultural and technological arguments regarding neanderthalensis. In conclusion, Neanderthal man apparently had language, but probably not as developed like that of modern humans. --Ano-User (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My problem with it is this: The first half, if you will notice, says that the hypoglossal canal in the fossils is evidence that they had advanced language abilities, but the second half of the paragraph says it isn’t. This is incoherent and self-contradictory. If the author’s intention is to describe a disagreement in the history of thought about this species, then this should be made clear from the beginning. As an English teacher with a layman's interest and knowledge of this subject, I am not qualified to make the edit, but I hope that the author of this paragraph, or another more knowledgeable editor, will clarify the point of this paragraph. Are we to dismiss this evidence or not, or is that still unclear? Chrisrus (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent National Geographic Article Should be Mined For This Article

This has lots of new information. Especially reporting of new DNA evidence. Proper citations should be made of course. 65.101.251.116 (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a great article.[6] TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Also this one on from National Geographic on the evolving view of the Neanderthal.[7] TimidGuy (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Clothing

The pictures of reconstructions in this article show Neanderthals wearing clothing (cured fur?), but the article itself makes no reference to apparel. Could someone add at least a mention of what level of sophistication their apparel took, perhaps to the Tools section? — Epastore (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Clothing is perishable, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence in the archaeological record for the kind of clothing they wore. The recent National Geographic article says that they likely didn't wear clothing in warmer weather. TimidGuy (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Quality

It seems a shame that an important article like this isn't GA or even FA quality. I'm happy to help put in the work to bring it up, but is there consensus on what needs to be done? I saw the to-do list, but this doesn't seem to be a roadmap for getting a higher quality rating, but rather some ad-hoc thoughts. I know that there are a number of people who have put in a huge amount of work to the article, so I don't want to be seen as coming in from nowhere and complaining, the article is very good now, I would just like to see it shine. --Deadly∀ssassin 04:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! Would love to see this happen. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Love to see what happen? I'm asking what needs to be done. :) --Deadly∀ssassin 06:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as the comment below would suggest, the article needs a general assessment to see whether it's in accord with the mainstream view. Beyond that, one would need to examine the sources to see if they're accurate represented. Then, based on this, parts of it would likely need to be rewritten. No small task. TimidGuy (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Article seems to misrepresent current state of debate

NPOV very much in doubt. Article repeatedly implies that recent scientific studies (dated to 2006) demmonstrate significant Neanderthal ancestry in modern humans. In fact, the current scientific consensus is quite the opposite. The poster responsible for this has introduced dubious interpretations and argumentative language disguised as scientific fact. For instance, it's a unwarranted leap to say that a study finding ancient characteristics proves a Neanderthal component in ancestry. Similarly, the claims about a Neanderthal component to several archaeologically attested cultures known to be human is without scientific merit. I don't feel expert enough to post a good edit on this issue, but I'm well-read enough to know it's a fairly serious problem that someone needs to fix. It's reasonable for the interbreeding side of the debate to be acknowledged, but a truly neutral article should show that it is currently not held in high favor among most scientists. Ftjrwrites (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article was greatly influenced by some aggressive, anonymous editors. Would be nice if you could give it some attention. TimidGuy (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tools

There are a number of inaccuracies in the Tools section that need to be edited. For example, Neanderthal tools were not 'often' made using soft hammers. There is 'some' evidence for the use of soft hammers, yet hard-hammer use clearly continued. Other aspects of the tools section need to be edited, too, but Wikipedia will not let me make any edits. GopherGal (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to edit the page. It's semiprotected, meaning that someone who hasn't registered can't edit it. But now that you have an account, there should be no problem. It would be good if you could fix these errors. TimidGuy (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

groups

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005151 Genetic Evidence of Geographical Groups among Neanderthals by Virginie Fabre, Silvana Condemi, Anna Degioanni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.127.200 (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientists "hope to falsify"????!

Scientists hope to falsify???

What kind of imbecile quasi-objective rendering is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.194.10 (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

changed the sentence to "Scientists hope the DNA records will answer the question of whether there was interbreeding among the species."  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 03:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning Up References section in Neanderthal Article

Discussion copied from User_talk:Chris_Capoccia#Cleaning_Up_References_section_in_Neanderthal_Article
— 

---

Hi, Chris. I am a new user/editor who has just stumbled across the Neanderthal article. I mainly work with California Indian group articles, but have loved prehistory studies all my life. I find the Neanderthal article dis-heartening, having read some of the discussion that shows a long (and perhaps losing) battle to maintain neutrality with regard to the "inter-breeding" question. As a beginning contribution, I would like to tackle a rather neutral problem that would help people more quickly understand just who is being cited in the overall article, and who is being left out. Currently the article has both "Notes" and "References" but most of the references are spread through the extensive notes. I would be willing to repeat all of them down in the "References" section in standard alphabetical order by author, without changing the "Notes" layout at all for now. However, Wikipedia rules say each article's reference history is supposed to be honored by new editors. What do you think? Should I expand the references by copying them from the notes? Or will I get clobbered for ignoring some ancient edit battle? I also posted to "TimidGuy", a long term editor, with this question.Middle Fork (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would rather see the items in the References section be moved into footnotes so that it's more clear what part of the text they are supporting. Right now, it's more like "Further reading" than "References". But I don't have full access to many of the items listed, so I can't say what part of the article they go with.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 03:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I am very new as a Wikipedia editor and I am just learning about the rules and protocols. I am finding the Neanderthal article to have two huge problems. First, it is poorly structured, i.e. redundent. Second, two groups of scholars with very different opinions are using this article to make intellectual war on each other (which may be generating some of the redundency). I am not suggesting that footnotes, which tell you exactly which section "Tattersel 1997" is supporting, be eliminated. But I also want to be able to go to one place [References] and quickly see if all of the important "Tattersel" or "Torroni" or whatever authors and articles are even mentioned. It is the bibliography/references that immediately tell the expert whether or not an article is presenting all sides. It is impossible to absorb that kind of information from the incredibly long list of "annotated" footnotes in the present Neanderthal article. From the Wikipedia citations style guide:

Shortened footnotes are used for several reasons: they allow the editor to cite many different pages of the same source without having to copy the entire citation; they avoid the inevitable clutter when long citations are inserted into the source text; they bring together all the full citations into a coherent block of code (rather than being strewn throughout the text) which allows the list to be alphabetized and makes it easier to edit all the full citations at once (e.g. adding ISBN, DOI or other detail); and a single footnote can contain multiple citations, thus avoiding long rows of footnote markers.

Please think about this for a couple of days. Meanwhile, I have extracted every footnote from the article, and I am going to clean them up and build a "mock" bibliography for you and the other editors to take a look at next week. If I cannot build consensus for it, I will shrug and amble on. :-) Middle Fork (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

you can save yourself some trouble and just point to some other existing article that you want to mimic.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 16:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Chris. No trouble at all. I am using the references I extracted to start my own personal Neanderthal bibliography. However, for examples of using footnotes and references in tandem, see Jomon Culture, which I had nothing to do with, and Ohlone, which I have been working with lately, but which was structured as notes/references before I entered the picture.Middle Fork (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

there are several problems with this method of organizing things: 1) the amount of clicks/mouse movements to go from a footnote link in the text to the actual document are much more. 2) the reference list has to be manually updated and maintained separately from the footnote list. 3) it encourages adding items to the reference list that are not actually used as references in the article. it also is difficult to tell which items in the references list are actually used in the article. currently, i can tell that only the items in the footnote list are actually used, and the reference list is more like further reading. 4) most of the footnotes are links to whole articles, and when i looked quickly through the list, i didn't see any books being cited multiple places with different page numbers. the main benefit for using this method is when you have many citations to different pages of the same work.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris. I agree with your points, but believe that the positive points of an alphabetical reference section for Neanderthals outweigh the negative points that you make. However, I bow to you as a committed editor of the Neanderthal article. I will move along and try to help strengthen other articles that interest me. Middle Fork (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation in aDNA section

In the aDNA section, fifth paragraph, there is a citation needed for the Science Daily article published on 16 November 2006. The article is entitled "Neanderthal Genome Sequencing Yields Surprising Results And Opens A New Door To Future Studies" and can be found here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061116083223.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkernen (talk • contribs) 15:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

done.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 16:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Y-chromosomal Adam != MRCA

The last bullet point under "Neanderthal extinction" suggested that Y-chromosomal Adam is the most recent common ancestor, which isn't true. I've revised the text to clarify. Mateoee (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to Aurignacian and Gravettian

I was reading this article about the Neanderthal and I was really surprised to see them associated to Aurignacian and Gravettian cultures, against everything I've always read in the past about it. After a bit of research, here's a source that support the view that aurignacian culture is associated with modern humans :

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/who-made-the-early-aurignacian-the-dental-evidence/

The more so with gravettian, of course.

Contributions/216.221.63.222 (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Luc D.

edit

The article is not editable. I want to add new data to this article because now it is substantially misleading . I don't understand why my simple (naive?) question, about time, when will be possible to add the data was deleted ? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your previous edits to this talk page were reverted because they looked like simple test edits. The article is indefinitely semi-protected due to persistent vandalism. To edit the article you must create an auto-confirmed account -- read more at Wikipedia:Protection policy#semi. --Addingrefs ( talk | contribs ) 12:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I see some persistent abusers e.g. deer faculty Wapondaponda who bugged me round off. As you see he's been sprayed wikidead for good. So open it now.76.16.176.166 (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda (talk · contribs) was blocked for being a sockpuppet of a banned user. That has nothing to do with this page. Auntie E (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, then was no persistent abuser. Please open the page. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Neanderthal origins

I have read through this article, and did not find a clear explanation of the current theories of Neanderthal origins (even though there is a lot of detail given to theories of neanderthal fate / extinction). From whom are Neanderthals thought to have evolved? Are they descendants of homo erectus or of Archaic homo sapiens? Did they come from Africa like homo sapiens or did they evolve in situ in Europe? What is the range of current expert opinion about these questions?

Another very confusing thing:

• the article talks about the possibility that Neanderthals are a sub-species of homo sapiens (homo sapiens neanderthalensis)
• Yet it says that the Recent Out of Africa model of human evolution is the dominant model. (which posits that humans only left Africa ca. 60,000 years ago and replaced the neanderthals, who had already been in Europe from before 100,000 years ago)

How do these 2 things fit together? If the R.O.A. model is correct, and Neanderthals are found exclusively outside Africa, how can they possibly be a sub-species of homo sapiens? Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

sources

• Excavation of the Middle Paleolithic cave site Lakonis in southern Greece has yielded a lower third molar (LKH 1). Am J Phys Anthropol 138:112–118, 2009

In today's German?

The introductory sentence looks a bit mumbo jumbo and incoherent. The sentence should be more concise and less vague. It sounds and reads like its only extinct in Germany. Tdinatale (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no way "in today's German" could be misunderstood as "in today's Germany" unless someone didn't notice the y at the end, which you did notice, but you're right that information about what N is called in modern German was superfluous and confusing. Someone just didn't bother to check a reliable source and instead sloppily deleted the valuable information that Neandertal is an alternative English spelling by changing it into superfluous and confusing information. The same person also deleted the most common US pronunciation, once again probably based only on personal (limited) knowledge and without checking any reliable sources. --Espoo (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it a reference to the German spelling reforms? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 19:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well yes and no. The spelling of words in th pronounced t was reformed to conform to the pronunciation in 1901 during the previous major spelling reform, as explained in the article at Neanderthal#Etymology_and_classification. And that's the correct place for comments about German spelling. The comment "in today's German" was however, as i explained above, not only superfluous and confusing in the very first sentence but was caused by a lack of knowledge about English spelling (and therefore resulted in deletion of this info about English spelling). --Espoo (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I quite follow, but I'll presume you know what you're doing, as I haven't history dived. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 01:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope it's clearer when described as a process: 1) Someone saw the explanation "or Neandertal" and thought that this is not a correct alternative spelling in English (because they don't like it or didn't know about it and didn't look in a reliable source). 2) The same person knew that the modern German spelling of the hominid is Neandertaler, so they thought that whoever added "or Neandertal" was confused and trying to say something about German spelling. 3) They added "in today's German Neandertal(er)", which removed the valuable info that "Neandertal" is a correct English spelling variant and added incorrect info about German. (Neandertal is the valley and Neandertaler the hominid so writing "(er)" in parenthesis is simply wrong when referring to the hominid.) --Espoo (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Word confusion

Under the language subheading,

"The hyoid is a small bone which connects the musculature of the tongue and the larynx, and by bracing these structures against each other, allows a wider range of tongue and laryngeal movements than would otherwise be possible*. The presence of this bone implies that speech was anatomically possible. The bone which was found is virtually identical to that of modern humans."

Possible* needs to be changed to impossible.

That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougcard (talk • contribs) 02:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No change necessary. Read again: "allows wider range than otherwise"; hence, without, speech is impossible. BTW, this, IIRC, has been "corrected" at least once before, by somebody who didn't actually read it, either. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see. Made sense rereading it. Still, the word may want to be substituted, seeing as how others are misreading it too. limited or reduced, maybe?Dougcard (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I see your meaning. "wider than the prevoiusly limted range"? I don't find it unclear, & changing it strikes me as not clarifying much, because then, the question arises, "What was the limiting range?" & possibly, "Is there a 'limit' range?" As it is, it's explained the hyoid is essential to speech (which I've always taken to be true). Unless you'd prefer a flat statement of same, which would require sourcing.... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)